BT 871 
.K5 
1847 
Copy 2 




LIBR/ (Y OF CO 'i&l 


| S|h ; : : .. ©X^ j • 


hel£„__ 


UNITE© STATES _ IIBICA* 


. 



4/f. 



THE 



RESURRECTION OE THE DEAD: 

A VINDICATION OF THE 



LITERAL RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY; 



/i 



IN OPPOSITION TO 



THE WORK OF PROFESSOR BUSH. 

33j} Glahnn KingsUg. 



Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. -Jude. 



GEORGE PECK, EDITOR. 



PUBLISHED BY LANE & TIPPETT, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 200 MULBERRY-STREET. 
JOSEPH LONGKING, PRINTER. 



^ 



" 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by 
G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, in the Clerk's Office of the District 
Court of the Southern District of New-York 



v * : »«v*Y > *^Y *%- H%A*%\ v^* 



*% « s * dt * \ «*''% * v ^ ^ 



J& i »& 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The following pages contain the sub- 
stance of a discourse on the resurrection 
of the body, preached in Erie, Pa., late in 
the fall of 1845. The occasion of the 
sermon was the introduction of numerous 
copies of a book written by George Bush, 
Professor of Hebrew in the New- York 
University. The avowed object of the 
book is to overthrow the commonly re- 
ceived opinion of the resurrection of the 
body. These books were extensively cir- 
culated and read. Some embraced the 
new theory, others found their faith weak- 
ened by the bewildering speculations of 
the learned author. 

Under these circumstances, believing 
the error inculcated in the book to be fun- 



4 ADVERTISEMENT. 

damental ; that it aimed a fatal blow at the 
very vitals of Christianity; that it led 
directly, in all its tendencies, to infidelity ; 
a refutation was undertaken, and the fol- 
lowing discourse, in three parts, delivered 
during three successive sabbaths. 

Immediately upon the delivery of the 
sermon, the author was waited on for a 
copy of his discourse for publication. But 
owing to providential circumstances the 
sermon could not be prepared for the press 
at that time, nor during the past winter. 

A few weeks since, the author learned 
from his much esteemed friend, Hon. 
James D. Dunlap, of Erie, that while at 
Harrisburgh, the last winter, he had made 
arrangements with the book agents at 
New- York to publish the sermon, pro- 
vided that, in the estimation of the agents, 
it answered the description given of it ; 
and forthwith he commenced writing out 
the discourse, from extensive notes pre- 
pared at the time of preaching it. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



If the author were persuaded that his 
humble effort to defend the Scripture 
doctrine on the subject of the resurrection 
would have the effect, in any degree, to 
counteract the injurious tendencies of a 
theory, calculated at once to unsettle the 
very foundations of our holy Christianity ; 
if it should have the effect in any degree 
to place in a clear light a great and pre- 
cious doctrine of the gospel, and to rescue 
a truth that is vital from the attack of a 
vain philosophy, the same motive that led 
to its preparation and delivery would now 
induce him to give it a more extensive 
circulation. 

Alleghany College, May 27, 1846. 



THE 

RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 
PART I. 

WHY SHOULD IT BE THOUGHT A THING INCREDIBLE WITH 
YOU, THAT GOD SHOULD RAISE THE DEADl ACTS XXVI, 8. 

Whatever throws light upon the ultimate 
destination of man must be matter of intense 
interest to every considerate mind. That man 
is mortal ; that his stay upon earth is brief and 
uncertain ; that age, like the chilling winter, 
palsies and benumbs his limbs ; that the dark 
and dismal night of death closes around him in 
the midst of his pursuits, are truths within the 
observation of all. But " if a man die, shall he 
live again ?" Is there a trans-sepulchral world ? 
Is the lamp of reason and intelligence, which 
has been lighted up by the eternal Fountain, to 
go out in everlasting darkness; or, does the 
curtain of death but conceal from mortal view 
its lustre, while it passes over the "gloomy 
vale" into a "spirit land?" Is the "dark val- 
ley and shadow of death" the ultimate boundary 



8 THE RESURRECTION. 



of human prospects, or is there beyond it " a 
land inhabited ?" And, if so, what are the re- 
lations and dependencies between that world 
and this? These are questions which press 
upon the mind whose only illumination is the 
light of reason, with painful interest. These 
are problems belonging to a higher science than 
is taught in nature's book. A revelation from 
God alone can solve them. This has been 
made. The great Master and Teacher, "the 
Father of lights," has explained these otherwise 
inextricable mysteries, for our learning and sal- 
vation. 

This revelation teaches most clearly, 

I. That man's soul is immortal ; that it does 
not die with the body, but has a conscious ex- 
istence when the body is dead. 

II. That although the body is now mortal, it 
was not originally so; but has become so by 
transgression. 

III. That the body, which has become mor- 
tal in consequence of sin, shall be raised again 
to life, and be made immortal, through the 
atonement of Jesus Christ ; and, 

IV. That soul and body united shall be 
happy or miserable for ever, in the world to 
come, according to the character sustained in 
this. 






THE RESURRECTION. 9 

Every one of these propositions has been 
denied by those who, nevertheless, profess to 
believe the Scriptures. Yet not one of them 
can be disproved without doing violence to 
every known principle of interpretation. 

But the third proposition, namely, that there 
will be a resurrection of the human body, will 
more particularly claim our attention at this 
time. Every fundamental doctrine of the Scrip- 
tures has, by turns, been assailed by the ene- 
mies or the misguided friends of the gospel of 
Christ ; and the errors of these enemies or mis- 
guided friends have only been exposed by 
bringing the steady light of revelation to bear 
upon them, until their uncouth features and 
frightful deformities might be made apparent, 
and their evil and pernicious influence effectu- 
ally shunned. 

The time has come when in regard to the 
doctrine of the resurrection it is necessary to 
" contend earnestly for the faith once delivered 
to the saints." Professor Bush, a man of talent, 
of learning, and a minister of the gospel, has, in 
a very labored treatise, used all his strength and 
ingenuity to prove that there can be no resur- 
rection of the human body, in any sense what- 
ever. From the position Professor B. occu- 
pies, as well as from the relation ins views 



10 THE RESURRECTION. 

have to certain other doctrines of Scripture, it 
is not difficult to foresee that his opinions will 
draw after him numerous followers. 

A few quotations, from the work of Professor 
B., will show that I have not misunderstood 
him. On the first page of the preface he says : 
" The resurrection of the body, if my reasoning 
and expositions are well founded, is not a doc- 
trine of revelation" Again : " The resurrection 
of the same body, in any sense whatever, en- 
counters difficulties in our view absolutely in- 
surmountable" P. 40. Again: "How the evi- 
dence adduced may strike the reader we know 
not ; to our minds it is amply sufficient to estab- 
lish the conclusion, that the resurrection of the 
body is not a doctrine sanctioned by reason or 
revelation, so far as we have hitherto interro- 
gated the testimony of each." P. 274. Multi- 
tudes of such passages, from all parts of the 
book, might be collected. 

Having seen what our author positively de- 
nies, let us next see what he positively affirms ; 
that both denial and affirmation may be submit- 
ted to the test of the Scriptures. On page 70 
he says, " The resurrection body is that part of 
our present being to which the essential life of 
the man pertains. We may not be able to see 
it, to handle it, to analyze, or describe it. But 



THE RESURRECTION. 11 

we know that it exists, because we know that 
we ourselves exist. It constitutes the inner, 
essential vitalities of our present bodies ; and it 
lives again in another state, because it never 
dies. It is immortal in its own nature, and is 
called a body — a spiritual body — because the 
poverty of human language, or perhaps the 
weakness of the human mind, forbids the adop- 
tion of any more befitting term by which to 
express it." Again : " It would seem, then, on 
the whole, from a collation of all the grounds 
on which an opinion is founded, that the judg- 
ment of reason would be, that a spiritual body 
is developed at death — by the development we 
mean disengagement." P. 78. Again : " It is 
something essentially connected with vital opera- 
tions ; something that is exhaled with the dying 
breath, or, in other words, that goes from the 
body before it is consigned to the dust." Again : 
" Let it (the resurrection) be understood as an 
event which transpires with every individual 
believer, as soon as he leaves the body." P. 170. 
" The true anastasis (or resurrection) is the de- 
velopment of a spiritual body at death" P. 78. 
From these passages, which might be greatly 
extended, this theory maintains that all the 
resurrection there is for human beings, is the 
separation of the soul and body, at death ; and 



12 THE RESURRECTION. 



the conscious existence of the soul, after death : 
the participation of the body in this resurrec- 
tion being distinctly denied. That Professor 
B. means the same thing by his spiritual body 
which others mean by the soul is further evident 
from the following quotation, p. 145: "The 
prevailing sense of resurrection, in the New 
Testament, is simply that of a future existence, 
the future state, or immortality." Consequently 
by this theory there will be no general resur- 
rection, nor general judgment : and this he ar- 
gues at length in his book. " The grand point," 
says Professor B., " which we combat through- 
out, is that which affirms that no resurrection 
can take place but by means of the reunion of 
those principles, soul and body, which constitute 
our being in the present life. We maintain, on 
the other hand, that neither reason nor revela- 
tion countenance the idea of any such reunion. 
All the purposes of a future state of existence 
and retribution we contend may be answered 
without it." P. 78. 

Having stated, somewhat at length, the theory 
which contradicts a great, and, as we believe, a 
fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, let us 
next look at the arguments by which the new 
theory is substantiated. These are drawn, first, 
from reason; and, secondly, from revelation. 






THE RESURRECTION. 13 

But the argument from reason is made the 
criterion by which the declarations of Scripture 
are interpreted. This will be made plain by 
another quotation, p. 385 : " The point that will 
probably be regarded as most exceptionable, is 
the making our rational deductions the criterion 
in regard to the meaning of the inspired word, 
on a theme of so much importance as the mode 
of our future existence." Such a declaration, 
from such a quarter, cannot fail to startle the 
pious believer, who has been accustomed to 
place implicit reliance in the lively oracles of 
eternal truth. It is easy to perceive in this, 
though perhaps not so intended by the author, 
the latent germ of infidelity. And although it 
is but a smooth, round egg, a serpent is forming 
within it, whose poisonous venom will be the 
destruction of those who embrace him. The 
following quotation will show him more dis- 
tinctly : " If the letter of revelation holds forth 
a view of the doctrine which arrays itself against 
the clearest evidence of facts, and the soundest 
process of reasoning, is there no demand, on the 
other side, for the reconciliation of Scripture 
with reason and science ? Are ive to hoodwink 
our faculties to do homage to revelation ?" Here 
the more than semi-transparent covering shows 
u§ the snaky folds of the serpent. He is full- 



14 THE RESURRECTION. 

blooded, if not full-grown ; and ere long he will 
burst the shell, and become a hideous monster, 
rolling his fiery eyes, and darting his forked 
tongue. I would not charge the author of the 
new theory with intentionally advocating infidel 
principles, for he avows his firm belief in the 
Scriptures; but I do say that the legitimate 
tendency of such dealing with the Scriptures is 
to infidelity. What infidel would refuse to sub- 
scribe to the Scriptures, if permitted to reject, 
or explain away, whatever does not suit his 
" rational deductions ?" and especially if he be 
allowed to do what Professor B. has done, 
positively contradict the inspired apostles, and 
accuse them of being mistaken, when they cross 
his path. It has been in precisely this way that 
many of the most ruinous and soul-destroying 
heresies have crept into the Christian church. 
Universalism and Unitarianism owe their very 
existence to this method of tampering with the 
Scriptures. Professor B. rejects the doctrine 
of the resurrection, because he cannot see any 
use for such a doctrine ; affirming that all the 
purposes of a future state and of retribution 
may be answered without it. P. 78. For the 
same reason do Universalists deny the doctrine 
of future retribution. They suppose all the 
purposes of the divine government can be an- 



THE RESURRECTION. 15 

swered without it. For the same reasons do 
both Unitarians and Universalists deny the doc- 
trine of a vicarious atonement, the divinity of 
Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. In all 
this there is such a show of philosophy, falsely so 
called, such a pampering of human pride, such 
erroneous notions of the true province of human 
reason, as are well calculated to induce those 
under the influence of such views to sit un- 
blushingly in judgment on the ways of God. 
How has Professor B. ascertained that all the 
purposes of a future state can be answered with- 
out the resurrection of the human body ? How 
likely are we to be mistaken, and to form erro- 
neous opinions, in regard to things immediately 
surrounding us ; and who, unless it be the crazy 
Swedenborg, with whose writings I suspect our 
author has kept company too long, shall stand 
up and declare that from his knowledge of all 
the relations and dependencies of a future state, 
as well as from his knowledge of all the pur- 
poses of the divine mind, there is no use for 
the human body in a future state ? 

I would not say that human reason has no- 
thing to do in matters of religion ; very far from 
it. Its sphere is, first, to examine the proofs 
which establish the authenticity of the Scrip- 
tures ; and, secondly, to ascertain, by the estab- 



16 THE RESURRECTION. 

lished principles of interpretation, what the 
Bible does teach — not what it must teach, in 
order to accord with our previous notions or 
" rational deductions." 

The very fact that a revelation has been 
made supposes human reason ignorant of the 
things revealed; otherwise there would have 
been no need of the revelation. That any par- 
ticular doctrine of revelation cannot be dis- 
covered by the light of reason, therefore, is no 
objection against such doctrine, but rather an 
argument in its favor, inasmuch as if all the 
doctrines of the Bible might have been known 
without a revelation, there would have been 
more grounds for believing the Bible to be a 
mere human production, the result of man's 
" rational deductions." 

The grand error in the theory we are op- 
posing is, that it attempts to discover the doc- 
trines of religion independently of the only light 
that has revealed them, and then requires the 
Bible to sanction its conclusions. The best eye 
cannot see without light. No more can the 
best reasoning powers draw correct conclusions 
without sufficient data. And in matters of re- 
ligion it is the peculiar province of revelation to 
furnish this data. The optician who should 
shut himself up in a dark room, in order to 



THE RESURRECTION. 17 

investigate the properties of light, and then 
require the laws of optics to conform to his pre- 
conceived theory, his "rational" or irrational 
"deductions," would not be more inconsistent 
than the theologian who professes to investigate 
the deep things of God, independently of the 
only means that has revealed them, and then 
requires the Bible, whether it will or not, to 
sanction his favorite theology. 

From all this it is a most "rational deduc- 
tion," that human reason should investigate any 
subject in the light of that science which pro- 
perly embraces that subject. What would be 
thought of the mathematician who should set 
himself to work to discover, by arithmetical 
formula, the laws of chemical affinity? or of 
the musician who should undertake to investi- 
gate the principles of geometry by tones and 
semi-tones ? Can the laws of gravitation de- 
velop the principles of moral obligation? or 
the rules of rhetoric explain the properties of 
the rainbow ? The reason is plain ; these sci- 
ences are not homogeneous. They differ essen- 
tially in their nature, and the principles of the 
one do not apply to the other. Chemistry must 
be studied in the light of chemistry ; geometry 
in the light of geometry, and so of all others. 

Many truths can be demonstrated only by 
2 



18 THE RESURRECTION. 

the evidence of experience, and no previous 
train of reasoning a 'priori could develop them. 
A person takes into his mouth a little starch, a 
perfectly tasteless substance: he then tastes 
sulphuric acid, one of the most intensely sour 
and acrid of all substances. What does he ex- 
pect will be the taste of the compound of the 
two ? Why, inasmuch as the one was intensely 
sour, and the other had no taste at all, he would 
most likely conclude that the compound would 
be sour still. What then becomes of his " ra- 
tional deductions " when, upon tasting the com- 
pound, he finds it sugar. 

Take another example. A philosopher who 
has never seen a bird upon the wing, finds the 
nest of an eagle. He is told that from these eggs 
there will emerge animals which will move off 
with great rapidity through the air. The thing 
appears to him at once "incredible." He breaks 
one of the eggs, examines it minutely, ascertains 
its specific gravity to be even greater than wa- 
ter. Even if it should ever have life, of which 
he sees no signs, how is it going to move off in 
the air when it sinks in water ? At length an 
animal, different from anything he has seen, 
emerges from the shell. He watches its growth 
and development until it is full grown. But 
yet its specific gravity is much greater than air. 



THE RESURRECTION. 19 

How then is it going to rise and float off above 
the earth ? While he thus reasons and specu- 
lates, the bird spreads his wings, and mounting 
above the clouds, mocks all his short-sighted 
speculations. 

What a pity that men will not learn modesty 
from their own liability to be mistaken in mat- 
ters much less mysterious than the resurrection 
of the dead I And if one human science cannot 
develop the principles of another human science, 
how much less shall any human science develop 
the great truths of revealed religion ! It is true 
that the sciences reciprocally reflect light upon 
each other; and revelation sheds its effulgent 
light upon all true science ; and all science, 
truly so called, reflects back the golden rays of 
revelation. But all tins is incidental, and I 
may add, too, providential ; but it is not the 
province of one science to develop another, 
much less is it the province of any or all human 
science to discover the great principles of di- 
vinely inspired truth. 

As our author has drawn largely from the 
analogies of science in order to prepare the 
minds of his readers for his new theory, I now 
proceed to examine a sophism, which is at the 
very foundation of this new theory of the resur- 
rection. It is argued that all knowledge is 



20 THE RESURRECTION. 

progressive, as well the knowledge of revela- 
tion ; as the knowledge of the sciences and that, 
consequently, we may expect that different views 
will be entertained on the subject of revealed 
truth, in different ages, in accordance with this 
view of progressive knowledge. The various 
changes rung upon this idea occupy a large 
space in this modern theory. Now the sophis- 
try does not consist in the mere assertion that 
" knowledge is progressive," but in the applica- 
tion of it. It is true that knowledge is progres- 
sive. But how does knowledge progress ? By 
exploding at each successive step all previous 
knowledge ? Most certainly not. It only pro- 
gresses by ascertaining some fixed principles, 
and then proceeding upon these principles, and 
not by constantly unsettling these principles 
themselves. Truths must exist as unchangeable 
realities, before there can be any progressive 
knowledge of them. The knowledge of the 
sciences is progressive; but no progressive 
knowledge unsettles the great fundamental prin- 
ciples which are at the very foundation of the 
sciences themselves. For example, we may say 
the knowledge of geometry is progressive. But 
will any progressive knowlege of this science 
unsettle its elementary principles? Will any 
progressive knowledge prove that a square has 



THE RESURRECTION. 21 

not all its sides equal, and all its angles right- 
angles? or that a circle is not bounded by a 
curved line, every part of which is equally dis- 
tant from a common point? And when it is 
fairly demonstrated that the square upon the 
hypothenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal 
to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, 
can any subsequent progressive knowledge 
prove this theorem false ? Subsequent investi- 
gations thenceforth receive this theorem as an 
established truth. Similar reasoning applies to 
other sciences. 

The case is similar with regard to revealed 
religion. God has established a system of truth, 
a religious science, for the salvation of mankind. 

This science, like all others, contains certain 
elementary and fundamental truths, which truths 
remain unaltered by any progression in human 
knowledge. The resurrection of the dead is 
one of these truths, and one of so much import- 
ance, that our Saviour rests upon it his entire 
claim as Redeemer of the world. This doctrine 
comes to us as a revealed truth, and is, perhaps, 
more purely within the province of revelation 
alone, than almost any other doctrine of the 
Scriptures ; a doctrine so entirely above and be- 
yond the reach of unaided human reason, that 
she is unable in her own name to say one word 



22 THE RESURRECTION. 

either for or against it; but yet a doctrine as 
unequivocally taught in the Bible, the only book 
that could reveal it, as any proposition can be 
taught in language ; and a doctrine of so much 
importance in the estimation of the inspired 
apostles, who understood by it, according to the 
admission of Professor B., the resurrection of 
the body, that they rested all their pretensions 
upon it, and even the salvation of their souls 
from eternal perdition; and suffered death in 
the most frightful forms, because they could not 
be made to renounce it. Nay more, Professor 
B., p. 167, admits that our Saviour intended 
that the apostles should believe this doctrine. 
If the God of truth intended that the apostles 
should believe this doctrine, how does Professor 
B. know but that he intends that all the rest of 
mankind should also believe it? If the un- 
changeable God intended that this doctrine 
should be believed eighteen centuries ago, how 
has Professor B. ascertained that he does not 
intend it still ? Has there been any new reve- 
lation since? But Professor B. intends that 
mankind shall disbelieve this doctrine. May not 
his task, in this respect, be rather a thankless 
one ? And is there not a little danger that he 
be found contending against God ? If the doc- 
trine was true when God intended it to be be- 



THE RESURRECTION. 23 

lieved, it is true still. If it was false, then 
God intended that the apostles, who were made 
the dispensatories of his will to mankind, should 
believe a falsehood!! A conclusion at once 
both shocking and basphemous. How then is 
the law of progressive knowledge to strike from 
the bright constellation of religious truths* this 
central star? 

The truths of revelation are not like some 
Machines, which require to be remodeled and 
improved from time to time in order to suit the 
improvements of the age ; nor like some gar- 
ments, that must be cut and made over every 
six months to be in fashion. If they were, 
there might be some propriety in talking about 
the law of progressive knowledge, as applied to 
the doctrine of the resurrection. Then, indeed, 
we might send to the east every spring and fall 
for our theology, as we now do for our fashions. 
But the doctrines of the gospel are pure, un- 
changing, and eternal truths. 

There is no doubt that the knowledge of the 
Scriptures, like other knowledge, is progressive ; 
and that age after age may unfold new excel- 
lences in the word of God, as its precepts come 
to be better obeyed, and its prophecies, yet 
future, come to be fulfilled and better under- 
stood ; but so far from unsettling the confidence 



24 THE RESURRECTION. 

of mankind in its great fundamental truths, this 
very circumstance will but strengthen it. 

We are now prepared to explode another 
sophism similar in its character to the one just 
examined. The principle laid down, out of 
which a great deal of capital is attempted to be 
made in all parts of the book, against the re- 
surrection of the body, is, in substance, this: 
The God of revelation is also the God of na- 
ture, and the revelation in his word cannot con- 
tradict the revelation in his works. And our 
author cannot "hoodwink his faculties to do 
homage to revelation." 

This popular declaration is in the mouth of 
every one who wishes to array his favorite 
dogma against the teachings of God's word, and 
is very well calculated to lead astray the minds 
of the unwary. In this case, as in the other, the 
sophistry does not consist so much in the decla- 
ration itself, as in the application of it. The 
declaration has two sides to it. And conclusions 
directly the reverse from those usually drawn 
from it are the correct conclusions. Suppose a 
particular dogma, the result of philosophical in- 
vestigation, or " rational deduction," arrays it- 
self against the plain teachings of God's word. 
Before any conclusion unfavorable to the doc- 
trine of the Scriptures can be drawn from such 



THE RESURRECTION. 25 

a dogma, it must be supported by an amount 
of evidence superior to that which substantiates 
the divine authenticity of the Scriptures. And 
this we venture to affirm is a case that never 
occurred. Therefore, the conclusion, in all such 
cases, is against the dogma itself, and not against 
the particular Scripture doctrine which it op- 
poses. The evidences of the divine authenticity 
of the Scriptures, especially to the Christian, 
who, in addition to all the rest, may have the 
evidence of his own experience, may be con- 
sidered absolutely conclusive. We may admit, 
then, and we believe, that no one truth can con- 
tradict another truth, and that 

The revelation in God's works cannot contra- 
dict the revelation in his word : 

But the particular dogma does contradict the 
revelation in his word : 

Therefore the particular dogma is not the re- 
velation of his works. 

Again : God's word is truth : but 

One truth cannot contradict another truth : 

But the particular dogma does contradict 
God's word : 

Therefore the particular dogma is not the 
truth. 

Let us now apply these principles to the 
theory under consideration. Are our author's 



26 THE BESURRECTION. 

" rational deductions " supported by an amount 
of evidence superior to that which authenticates 
the Bible ? Is it more evident that the God of 
infinite power and wisdom cannot prevent the 
particles which compose one human body from 
ever becoming essential parts of another human 
body, than that his word is true ? Is it more 
evident that the God by whom the very hairs 
of our heads are all numbered, and without 
whose notice not one is permitted to fall to the 
ground, cannot collect together again the scat- 
tered fragments of the human frame, than that 
the Bible is a divinely inspired record ? Is it 
more evident that God has no use for our bodies 
in the future world, than that the Scriptures 
are authentic ? Even our author does not pre- 
tend this : for he acknowledges on p. 235 that 
his rational deductions may be false ; while he 
declares, in another place, that he will yield to 
no man living in his implicit confidence in the 
Scriptures. While commenting upon John v> 
28, 29, he says: "This passage, as understood 
in its literal import, does certainly encounter 
the force of that cumulative mass of evidence, 
built upon rational and philosophical grounds, 
which we have arrayed against any statement 
of the doctrine which would imply the partici- 
pation of the body in that rising again which 



THE RESURRECTION. 27 

* 

is predicated of the dead. We do not by any 
means affirm that the conclusions from that 
source to which we have come are sufficient 
of themselves to countervail the rebutting con- 
clusions which may be formed from this text. 
All we would say is, that they have weight, and 
consequently we are not at liberty at once to 
dismiss them." P. 235. 

Mark this concession. What then is the correct 
conclusion even from his own premises ? Why 
that his " rational and philosophical deductions," 
being opposed to the Scriptures, and being sup- 
ported by evidence vastly less conclusive than 
that which authenticates the Scriptures, are 
themselves irrational, unphilosophical, and false. 
Thus in his haste to thrust at the sublime doc- 
trine of the resurrection, he has seized the sword 
of truth by the blade, which, when drawn to 
give the blow, has pierced himself. What then 
can be the use of all this flourish and parade 
about "rational and philosophical deductions," 
as doing away the resurrection of the body, un- 
less it be to entangle and bewilder the unwary, 
or to captivate those whose empty heads will 
echc the sound philosophy, because nothing but 
the sound is in their heads ? 

Having wrested, as we claim, the weapon 
from our opponent, we propose now to use it 



28 THE RESURRECTION. 

for a moment ourselves. Setting out then with 
the proposition, that no one truth can contradict 
another truth, we say that it is obligatory on 
him who broaches a new theory whose princi- 
ples conflict with established truths, to make his 
theory yield to those truths, and not the truths 
to his theory. Instead of making his new 
theory, as Professor B. has done, the " criterion " 
by which the meaning of the "established truths'* 
is to be known, he is to make the established 
truths the criterion by which the truthfulness 
of his new theory is to be tested, bearing in 
mind that the truths with which the new theory 
is to be compared must be embraced in the 
same general subject with the theory itself. For 
example: The truths of geometry, or electro- 
magnetism, cannot either favor or oppose the 
new doctrine of the resurrection, but the truths 
of revelation, especially upon the subject of the 
resurrection, can. Tried by these principles, 
the new doctrine of the resurrection is annihi- 
lated at once. 

From what has now been said, it is evident 
that a theory, claiming to be a science perfectly 
independent of all other sciences, stands or falls 
according to its own intrinsic merits, without 
any reference whatever to established truths on 
other subjects, inasmuch as it is not of a cha- 



THE RESURRECTION. 29 

racter to be tested by them. Such we claim to 
be the Scriptural theory of the resurrection of 
the human body. The Scripture doctrine on 
this subject is, that the resurrection is an effect 
produced by the immediate agency of God; 
that it is a miraculous interposition of divine 
power. Consequently we may admit that the 
ordinary laws of nature are not sufficient for the 
accomplishment of such a result, without in the 
least degree weakening the argument in its 
favor. The subject, therefore, of the resurrec- 
tion belonging to the science of miracles, must 
be studied in the light of miracles, and in no 
other light. For the science of miracles is 
above all other sciences, and independent of 
them. But a miracle being the result of the 
immediate agency of divine power, above 
the laws of nature, nothing can prevent its ac- 
complishment, if God intends to perform it, but 
what limits the divine power. But what can 
limit the divine power ? It can accomplish any- 
thing which is not in itself absurd, and this is 
no limitation. For example : to say that God 
cannot make a full grown man of thirty years 
of age in a moment, is no limitation of divine 
power, for the proposition is self-contradictory. 
But that God intends to "raise the dead/' in 
the common acceptation of the term resurrection. 



30 THE RESURRECTION. 

and in the sense in which the apostles under- 
stood the term, even by the admission of our 
author, Professor Bush himself would be willing 
to admit but for his " rational deductions." But 
I trust it has been shown that these deductions 
are anything else than " rational." And to say 
that God ever intended to raise the dead in this 
sense, and yet that the thing itself is contradic- 
tory in the nature of the case, is to cast a reflec- 
tion upon the divine wisdom. Did not God, 
when he intended it, perfectly understand all 
the possible contingencies of matter ? 

But I am willing to enter into a more par- 
ticular examination of these "rational deduc- 
tions," by which it is attempted to be shown 
that the common opinion of the resurrection in- 
volves an absurdity, in the nature of the case. 
Our opponents affirm, and we deny. 

The arguments, from "reason," against the 
resurrection of the body, may be summed up 
under four heads. 

1. That the body is in a constant state of 
change, from birth to death ; so that when it is 
said the body shall be raised, it cannot be known 
what body is meant ; as the individual, if he be 
an aged person, has had several entire bodies 
during lifetime : and if any one of these bodies 
should be raised, it would not be the body in- 



THE RESURRECTION. 31 

habited by the soul, except for a very small 
period of human life. 

2. That the body becomes totally decomposed 
after death, mingling with other elements, form- 
ing various and numberless new combinations. 
That parts of it pass away into impalpable 
gasses ; and these again uniting with other sub- 
stances, and these substances again suffering 
decomposition, and so on, till the identity of the 
body is utterly destroyed ; so that the identical 
body never can be raised again. 

3. That the resurrection of the identical body 
implies the resurrection of every identical par- 
ticle of matter of which the body is composed, 
neither more nor less : but, 

4. That this is impossible in the nature of 
the case, as one body at death becomes parts 
of other bodies at their death ; and, consequent- 
ly, that two or more souls would claim the same 
body, or parts of it, in the resurrection. 

Now I undertake to say that not one of these 
four propositions, taken as a whole, can be made 
out. To begin, then, with the first. There is 
no doubt but that some parts of the human body 
are in a state of flux, or change ; but it is not 
so evident that all the parts are ; no man on 
earth knows it, or can know it. But whether 
the whole body does thus change or not is per- 



32 THE RESURRECTION. 

fectly immaterial to the argument, so far as the 
resurrection is concerned; for the Scripture 
doctrine is, that it is the body that dies that is 
raised again, whether that body " sleeps in the 
grave," or " in the dust of the earth" elsewhere, 
or " in the sea." So that if we have had a hurt- 
dred bodies during lifetime, the case is not al- 
tered. The last part of this proposition is suffi- 
ciently answered by Mr. Watson: "Rewards 
and punishments have their relation to the body, 
not so much as it is the subject, but the instru- 
ment of rewards and punishments." As it is 
the soul only which is the responsible agent, so 
"it is the soul only which perceives pain or 
pleasure, which suffers or enjoys, and is, there- 
fore, the only rewardable subject. Were we 
to admit such corporeal mutations as are as- 
sumed in the objection, they affect not the case 
of our accountability. The personal identity or 
sameness of a rational being, as says Mr. Locke, 
consists in self-consciousness. c By this every 
one is to himself what he calls self, without con- 
sidering whether that self be continued in the 
same or diverse substances. It was by the 
same self which reflects upon an action done 
many years ago that the action was performed.' " 
But the objection contradicts the common sense 
of all mankind. Suppose the criminal, who has 



THE RESURRECTION. 33 

been sentenced to the penitentiary for fourteen 
years, should demand his release at the end of 
seven, on the grounds that it was another body 
which was sent there seven years before ; that 
they were other hands upon which the chains 
had been fixed ; and, as proof of this, should 
gravely enumerate the times he had pared his 
nails, and shaved his beard, since he was sent 
there ; who would think his reasons sufficient to 
release him, unless for the purpose of sending 
him from prison to a lunatic asylum ? 

The second proposition assumes that by rea- 
son of the total decomposition, and dispersion, 
and new compositions and decompositions, 
taking place with a dead body, that it is not 
possible that the same identical body can ever 
be raised again. But why not? Cannot the 
chemist take a piece of gold coin into his la- 
boratory, file it to powder, dissolve it with acids, 
alloy it with other metals, grind it again to pow- 
der, throw it into the fire, and mingle it with 
soot, ashes, and charcoal, and yet bring out 
the same fine gold? And cannot he mold it 
again in the same die, and be perfectly sure 
that it is the very same gold ? And is the God 
of all power and wisdom, whose vast laboratory 
is the universe, less skillful than the creatures 
he has made ? And cannot he, who is intimately 
3 



34 THE RESURRECTION. 

present to every particle of matter, who knows 
every particle by name, and whose power has 
brought every particle into being, collect toge- 
ther again the scattered fragments of the human 
frame, although mingled with the elements, and 
driven to the four winds of heaven ? May we 
not reply to those making this objection to the 
resurrection of the body, " Ye do err, not know- 
ing the Scriptures, nor the power of God ?" 

The third proposition, namely, that which 
affirms that there can be no resurrection of the 
identical body, without the resurrection of every 
particle of gross matter composing the body, has 
no relevancy to the argument, except by con- 
necting it with the fourth proposition : for un- 
less it can be proved that the very same matter, 
at least a portion of it, which was possessed by 
one human body at death, was also possessed 
by another human body at death, no argument 
can be drawn from this position unfavorable to 
the doctrine. It may be observed in this place, 
however, that those who adopt the commonly 
received opinion do not contend that just the 
same amount of gross matter, neither more nor 
less, which was deposited in the grave, is essen- 
tial to the resurrection. But they do believe that 
that which constitutes the essential identity or 
sameness of the body shall be raised again, not 



THE RESURRECTION. 35 

indeed in gross matter, but refined, purified, 
and made glorious. Our bodies, during lifetime, 
may vary very considerably, so far as the 
amount of gross matter contained in them is 
concerned, and that, too, in a very short space 
of time ; but who supposes that the essential 
identity of the body is destroyed by this ? The 
proposition contains a fallacy, by putting more 
into the definition of the word identity than the 
opposite doctrine allows ; and then drawing un- 
favorable conclusions from such definition. This 
is contrary to all the rules of honorable contro- 
versy. But it is contended by Professor Bush, 
that the very nature of identity absolutely re- 
quires all that is put into the definition. But 
this is not the question. It is enough that his 
opponents do not so understand it. The ques- 
tion is not whether the believers in the doctrine 
of a resurrection have used a particular word in 
a greater or less extension of meaning than that 
which rigidly belongs to it, but whether the idea 
they would convey by it, as explained by them- 
selves, is correct. The dispute is not about the 
meaning of a word, but the reality of a thing. 
If our author had considered this, he might have 
saved himself the labor he has bestowed on the 
subject of identity. 

Having encountered nothing formidable in 



36 THE RESURRECTION. 

the first three arguments, let us now examine 
the fourth. This asserts that in consequence 
of one body after death becoming parts of other 
bodies at their death, it is impossible, in the na- 
ture of the case, that the same bodies that die 
should be united again with the same souls with 
which they have lived : as where human bodies 
have been decomposed, and their substance gone 
to support vegetation, and this vegetation nour- 
ished other animals, and these animals again 
gone to the nourishment of man ; or, where the 
human body has gone to the support of grain, 
and this grain gone to the support of other hu- 
man beings ; or, more directly, where one human 
being has consumed the flesh of another, as in 
cannibalism. We have stated the case in all 
its strength, and are now prepared to look it 
full in the face. 

In regard to the first part of this position, 
namely, where the decomposed body goes to the 
support of vegetation, and this vegetation goes 
to the nourishment of human beings, it may be 
remarked, that but a small part of earth actu- 
ally becomes part of vegetation at all. This is 
demonstrated by the growth of plants and trees, 
where the entire amount of earth to which their 
roots had access has been weighed, both before 
and after their growth. In this manner plants 



THE RESURRECTION. 37 

and trees have increased many pounds in 
weight, while the earth to which their roots 
had access has diminished but a few ounces ; 
showing that the atmosphere and water contri- 
bute very largely to the growth of vegetation. 
Now, suppose a human being to have eaten 
grain that had grown upon soil enriched by the 
decomposition of a human body : allow that he 
has consumed one hundred pounds of such grain ; 
not more than one part in twenty-five of this 
grain ever becomes actually a part of the hu- 
man body, that is, four pounds. But not more 
than one part in twenty of the grain is converted 
earth, that is, one-fifth of a pound. But pro- 
bably not more than one part in a thousand, to 
which the roots of the grain had access, was 
human dust, which, by the previous calculation, 
would give to the second human body but one 
part in five thousand of a single pound, that is, 
the one three hundred and twelfth part of an 
ounce of matter which had ever been possessed 
by another human being ; and even this small 
fraction of an ounce might go to the grosser 
parts of the system, not at all necessary to the 
resurrection body. And where an animal has 
intervened, the ratio is immensely diminished. 

Again: but a small part of the vegetation 
concerned in the growth of grain is actually 



38 THE RESURRECTION. 

grain itself; and how easy for God, who is not 
inattentive to anything he has made, and who 
has adapted means to ends, with infinite skill, 
throughout every part of nature, to have so or- 
dered, in his providence, that this small part of 
human dust that actually becomes part of vege- 
tation should lodge in the roots, and stalk, and 
leaves, without ever becoming a part of the 
grain at all ! I say, cannot He do it ? And 
is there any contradiction in terms here ? And 
remember the question here is, whether the 
doctrine implies anything which is palpably ab- 
surd. If it be said that nothing short of divine 
interposition can bring out these results, we 
grant it. But nothing short of divine interpo- 
sition can effect the resurrection of the body. 
The same power that can do the one can do the 
other. Then "why should it be thought in- 
credible," with any who believe in a God of 
infinite power and wisdom, "that God should 
raise the dead ?" 

But let us take the case of cannibalism itself. 
Now, no considerable portion of the sustenance 
of any human being has been human flesh. 
But a small fraction of the entire food, even of 
those who occasionally indulge in this dreadful 
practice, has been of this kind. And but a 
small fraction, even of this small fraction, ever 



THE RESURRECTION. 39 

becomes part of the human body, allowing, for 
the present, that the flesh of one human being 
may become part of another human being. 
And even this small fraction may go to the 
grosser parts of the system, not at all necessary 
to the resurrection body. So that there is no- 
thing absurd, even here, in the commonly re- 
ceived doctrine of the resurrection. But I 
have a more weighty argument to offer against 
this position. We have already seen that the 
resurrection of the body, belonging to the na- 
ture of miracles, must be studied in the light of 
miracles. The question, then, is simply this : If 
the God of infinite power and wisdom set him- 
self to the accomplishment of this work, can he 
perform it? We unhesitatingly answer yes, 
and without any contradiction in terms either. 
To say that the thing is absurd, if we admit 
that God has set himself to accomplish it, is, as 
we have already seen, an impeachment of his 
wisdom. But it may be said, " This is the very 
thing we deny, namely, that God has set him- 
self to the accomplishment of this work." But 
let it be remembered that it is admitted on all 
sides that this is the obvious meaning of the 
Scripture's ; and a meaning which all would re- 
ceive, but for these " rational deductions " which 
we are now examining, and which alledge that 



40 THE RESURRECTION. 

the thing is absurd and self-contradictory. I 
say, then, we have a right to repeat the inquiry, 
"If the God of infinite power set himself to 
accomplish this work, cannot he perform it?" 
and to answer, as above, He may so order, in 
his providence, that no human being at death 
shall possess a single particle of another human 
being at death, even allowing cannibalism to 
be ever so much practiced. There are many 
ways of which we can conceive in which this 
can be done, and no doubt many more are open 
to the view of infinite wisdom. This may most 
easily be accomplished by controlling the cir- 
cumstances of the death of those who have been 
guilty of this inhuman practice ; and by other 
methods which have already been enumerated, 
even upon the supposition that one part of a 
human body may become, at some period, a 
portion of another body. 

But we will now admit, for the sake of the 
argument, what is claimed in the third proposi- 
tion, that the resurrection of the identical body 
requires the resurrection of all the gross mate- 
rials of which the body is composed ; not indeed 
in gross materials ; and then show that the doc- 
trine implies nothing contradictory or absurd. 
For then, examining the subject in the light of 
miracles, we have only to consider the Supreme 



THE RESURRECTION. 41 

Being as undertaking the task of raising every 
human body, entire, as it respects the amount 
of matter possessed by it at death. And is it 
not infinitely easy for Him so to order, in his 
power and wisdom, that no part of one human 
body after death shall ever become a part of 
another human body, under any circumstances ? 
Is it not as easy that a law shall be stamped 
upon the matter composing the human body, 
by which it cannot become amalgamated with 
another human body, as that a similar law 
should exist in regard to oil and water, or iron 
and clay? And cannot He who could cause 
Jive loaves and tiuo fishes to nourish five thou- 
sand men, besides ivomen and children, also 
cause the other food that has been eaten to be 
entirely sufficient for the nourishment of the 
human body, no matter how much the practice 
to which we have alluded has prevailed ? And 
would he not do it before his ultimate purpose 
in this respect should be thwarted ? Are the 
divine resources so feeble and scanty ; are the 
ultimate designs of the eternal Jehovah so cir- 
cumscribed, that a mere pigmy can throw them 
into confusion ? " Well, but this could not be 
done without a miracle." Well, what then? 
The whole subject of the resurrection belongs 
to miracles, Wliy will men, professing to be- 



42 THE RESURRECTION. 

lieve the Bible, identify themselves with ration- 
alists and infidels, in their abhorrence of any- 
thing miraculous ? Who shall stand up to 
"limit the Holy One of Israel?" We have 
seen, then, that this last and most plausible ob- 
jection interposes no serious obstacle in the 
way of the sublime and Scriptural doctrine of 
the resurrection of the body. 

The opposing theory is built upon doubtful 
deductions drawn from doubtful hypotheses ? 

I have bestowed the more attention upon 
these positions, because they contain the whole 
strength of the argument against the resurrec- 
tion of the body. It is admitted that the plain 
letter of inspiration teaches another doctrine. 
" But this doctrine," it is said, " encounters in- 
superable difficulties." So then, if these "in- 
superable difficulties" have been fairly removed, 
the argument is yielded at once ; inasmuch as 
these " difficulties " are all that have prevented 
the Scriptural doctrine from being received. 

All that is claimed, however, in this humble 
effort thus far, is, that the doctrine has been 
rescued from the bewilderments of a vain phi- 
losophy, and placed where we may contemplate 
it in the brighter and purer light of divine inspi- 
ration. Indeed, I suppose that an appeal di- 
rectly to the Scriptures, without this tedious 



THE RESURRECTION. 43 

examination of our author's "rational deduc- 
tions," would have been all-sufficient with most 
who have listened to these remarks ; but it is 
not so with all. And to many it will afford a 
higher degree of satisfaction, if not a higher 
degree of evidence, to know that these philo- 
sophical objections are themselves unphiloso- 
phical. 

The light of the sun may be obscured by 
fogs, and mists, and clouds ; so may the light 
of revelation by the bewildering speculations of 
a pseudo philosophy. You are well aware, my 
brethren, of the effect upon the youthful mind 
of an array of the high-sounding titles, " rea- 
son," " science," and " philosophy," when an at- 
tempt to array them is made, as in the present 
case, against the Scriptures. To rescue one 
youthful spirit who might be just upon the outer 
current of the maelstrom, whose constant in- 
fluence, " drawing inward and downward," is to 
swallow up, and engulf him in ruin, were an 
undertaking worthy of an angel — I hope an 
anxiety of this sort may atone for what might 
otherwise be somewhat tedious. If one of the 
feeblest of God's children should find his faith 
strengthened, or if any lingering skepticism 
should be dispelled from the mind of any, then 
shall I not have " labored in vain." Finally, my 



44 THE RESURRECTION. 






dear brethren, is there not an elevated satisfac- 
tion — a holy enjoyment, when, after following 
error into its lurking places, descending its dark 
and winding labyrinths, and traversing its damp, 
and cloudy, and miry vale, by the aid of the 
compass, we find ourselves in the clear sun- 
shine, and see that our foundation is the rock ? 



THE RESURRECTION. 45 



PART II. 

SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT THE RESURRECTION 

OF OUR SAVIOUR CONSIDERED. 

Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that 
God should raise the dead ? — Acts xxvi, 8. 

Having shown, in the preceding remarks, 
that the argument from the " light of reason," 
against the resurrection of the body, interposes 
no serious obstacle in the way of the doctrine, 
but is itself most unreasonable, we are now 
ready to pursue the subject in the clearer light 
of revelation. 

As Jesus Christ in his human nature was the 
first that rose from the dead to die no more, 
and as his resurrection is both a pledge and a 
sample of the resurrection of believers, it will 
be our object in the present discourse to ex- 
amine the nature of his resurrection. 

Let it be borne in mind that the author, 
whose book has been the occasion of this dis- 
course, asserts that all the resurrection there is 
for a human being " is simply a state of future 
existence or immortality." That "the disen- 
gagement of the spiritual body takes place at 
the moment of death" That this principle, the 
spiritual body — by which he evidently means 



46 THE RESURRECTION. 

what is commonly understood by the soul — " lives 
again, because it never dies." And that this is 
all the resurrection our Saviour ever experienced. 
That all that ever did rise of Jesus Christ, arose 
at the moment of his death ! ! 

Truly a new turn has been given to the con- 
troversy respecting the resurrection of our Lord. 
The fact of his resurrection has been demon- 
strated over and over again, with the clearness 
of a sunbeam, when assailed by the scoffs and 
sneers of infidelity. But latterly a " new inven- 
tion" has been "wrought out" — a new species 
of infidelity has sprung up, which admits all the 
evidence in favor of the fact, and yet denies the 
fact itself; with how much propriety, I trust 
the present discourse will show. Whatever be- 
comes of the author of this new theory, I can- 
not but believe, it would have been better for 
the world if the theory " had never been bom." 

But " to the law and the testimony." David 
prophesied of Christ's resurrection in the fol- 
lowing words : " My flesh also shall rest in hope, 
for thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; neither 
wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." 
Psa. xvi, 9, 10. Upon this passage the apostle 
Peter makes the following comment: (Acts ii, 
25-35) — "For David speaketh concerning him, 
I foresaw the Lord always before my face; 



THE RESURRECTION. 47 

for he is on my right hand, that I should not 
be moved : therefore did my heart rejoice, and 
my tongue was glad ; moreover also, my flesh 
shall rest in hope : because thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy 
Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made 
known to me the ways of life ; thou shalt make 
me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and 
brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the 
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, 
and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that 
God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the 
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would 
raise Christ to sit on his throne ; he, seeing 
this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, 
that his soul was- not left in hell, neither his 
flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God 
raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. There- 
fore being by the right hand of God exalted, 
and having received of the Father the promise 
of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which 
ye now see and hear. For David is not as- 
cended into the heavens : but he saith himself, 
The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou on my 
right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." 
Thus it is seen, that St. Peter applies this 
passage in Psalms to the resurrection of Christ. 



4:8 THE RESURRECTION. 

But how could the declaration, " My flesh shall 
rest in hope," be a prophecy of his resurrection, 
if his flesh had mingled with the elements, as is 
contended for by Professor B., and his body 
never be raised from the dead? And how 
could the declaration, " Neither wilt thou suffer 
thy Holy One to see corruption," be a prophecy 
of Christ's resurrection, unless it was spoken of 
his body ? For in the soul there is no tenden- 
cy to corruption. The spiritual body of the 
new theory " lives again in a future state be- 
cause it never dies." It is essentially immortal 
and incorruptible according to the theory itself. 
But Peter, in order to convince the Jews, who, 
it would seem, applied this prophecy to David 
himself, that they were mistaken, and that it 
applied to Christ, and not to David, says that 
" David is both dead and buried, and his sepul- 
chre is with us to this day." And again, verse 
34, " For David is not ascended into the hea- 
vens." But David's soul had been in heaven 
for centuries. It is as plain as anything can be, 
that Peter speaks of David's body, which had 
not yet ascended to heaven, in contradistinc- 
tion from Christ's body which had ascended to 
heaven. 

St. Paul quotes the same passage from the 
Psalms for the very same object, namely, to 






THE RESURRECTION. 49 

convince the Jews that Jesus had risen from the 
dead, according to the Scriptures, The follow- 
ing is the quotation by the apostle Paul, to- 
gether with his comment upon the passage : 
(Acts xiii, 34-37) — "And as concerning that 
he raised him up from the dead, now no more to 
return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will 
give you the sure mercies of David. Where- 
fore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt 
not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. For 
David, after he had served his own generation 
by. the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid 
unto his fathers, and saw corruption : but he 
whom God raised again, saw no corruption." 

This explanation perfectly harmonizes with 
that of Peter, together with the positive decla- 
ration that David saw corruption in consequence 
of death in opposition to Christ, who saw no 
corruption. 

• Can anything possibly be plainer from the 
explanation of these apostles, both of whom 
quote this psalm to prove the resurrection of 
Christ, that the body of David had suffered cor- 
ruption, or decomposition, in consequence of 
death, while Christ's body had been raised be- 
fore any corruption or decomposition had taken 
place ? But how, it may be asked, does the 
new theory escape these conclusions ? I answer, 



50 THE RESURRECTION. 

It cannot escape them. All it attempts to do is 
to prove, what no one denies, that these passages 
"allude exclusively to the resurrection of Christ." 
Yery well : they allude expressly to the resur- 
rection of Christ ; and this is the very purpose 
for which we have here introduced them. Where 
is the force of the argument of the apostles to 
convince the Jews, from their own scriptures, 
that Jesus had risen from the dead, according 
to our author's theory ? This theory maintains, 
that all that ever rose of our Saviour, rose at 
the very moment of death, and that " his body 
was miraculously resolved into its primitive ele- 
ments, while laying in the tomb of Joseph ! !" 
Pages 166, 167. In the light, or rather dark- 
nesSj of this new theory, let us look at the argu- 
ment of the apostles, to show that David was 
not speaking of himself, but of Christ. 1st. Da- 
vid was dead; well, so was Christ. 2d. Da- 
vid's sepulchre was with them ; so was Christ'si 
3d. But David had not yet ascended to heaven. 
This cannot mean his spiritual body : for this, 
according to the theory, " rose at the very mo- 
ment of his death." It " was exhaled with the 
dying breath." Then it must mean his natural 
body had not ascended to heaven ; so neither 
had Christ's. 4th. But David fell asleep in 
death, and saw corruption in consequence of 



THE RESURRECTION. 51 

death ; so also did Christ, with only this differ- 
ence, that while David's body was suffered to 
see corruption by the ordinary process of de- 
composition, our Saviour's body did not see cor- 
ruption, by the extraordinary process of a mira- 
cle ! What an overwhelming argument to the 
Jew!! 

The new theory will have to undergo a long 
process of "progressive improvement," before 
its application to these passages will make 
anything but ridiculous nonsense. But Christ 
himself foretold the nature and time of his own 
resurrection. Let us now examine his own 
prophesies in relation to this event, and see how 
they agree with the notion that a spiritual body 
was developed at the moment of death, and that 
his natural body never rose at all. In Matthew 
xvi, 21, we have his prophecy, as follows : " From 
that time forth began Jesus to show unto his 
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, 
and suffer many things of the elders and chief 
priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised 
again the third day." See also the parallel 
passages in the other evangelists. From this 
it is manifest that he made his death and re- 
surrection a subject of frequent conversation. 
"From that time forth began Jesus to show 
unto his disciples," &c. Accordingly, a short 



52 THE RESURRECTION. 

time after this, we have a repetition of the same 
prophecy, as follows : (Matt, xx, 17-19) — "And 
Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve 
disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, 
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son 
of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests, 
and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him 
to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to 
mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him : and 
the third day he shall rise again." The theory 
teaches expressly, that all the resurrection our 
Saviour ever experienced was at the moment 
of death; but Christ himself declares, that he 
should rise on the third day. One declaration 
or the other must be false : for they flatly con- 
tradict each other. Something was to be raised 
the third day. What was it ? It was not his 
soul, for this did not die. It was not such a 
spiritual body as the new theory contends for, 
for by the theory itself, such a body is essential- 
ly immortal, and " lives in a future state, because 
it never dies,' 9 and is developed at the moment 
of death. What then was it ? It was something 
that was to be crucified — something that was to 
be killed. What was it that was to be crucified 
and killed? The body, and nothing but the 
body. And the body, and nothing but the body, 
was to rise again on the third day. Other- 



THE RESURRECTION. 53 

wise, how is there any meaning at all in the 
language ? 

Take* another declaration of our Saviour re- 
specting this event: (John ii, 18-22) — "Then 
answered the Jews, and said unto him, What 
sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest 
these things ? Jesus answered and said unto 
them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I 
will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and 
six years was this temple in building, and wilt 
thou rear it up in three days ? But he spake of 
the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was 
risen from the dead, his disciples remembered 
that he said this unto them ; and they believed 
the Scriptures, and the word which Jesus had 
said." Mark the language of verse twenty- 
one, " But he spake of the temple of his body." 
What else could the Jews destroy ? They could 
destroy s his body, that is, they could kill his 
body, and nothing but his body ; and the same 
body which the Jews could, and would destroy, 
he would raise up in three days after. 

Let us now see how the event fulfilled these 
prophecies : (Luke xxiv, 1-8) — " Now, upon the 
first day of the week, very early in the morn- 
ing, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the 
spices which they had prepared, and certain 
others with them. And they found the stone 



54 THE RESURRECTION. 

rolled away from the sepulchre. And they en- 
tered in, and found not the body of the Lord 
Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much 
perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by 
them in shining garments: and as they were 
afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, 
they said unto them, Why seek ye the living 
among the dead ? He is not here, but is risen : 
remember how he spake unto you when he was 
yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be 
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be 
crucified, and the third day rise again. And 
they remembered his words." Now let it be 
remembered that these females, having pre- 
pared spices and ointments for the body of Je- 
sus on Friday, and rested on the sabbath, (Luke 
xxiii, 56,) came very early to the sepulchre, on 
Sunday morning, with the spices which they 
had prepared for the purpose of anointing the 
body of Jesus. " And when they found not the 
body of Jesus, they were much perplexed there- 
about." About not finding the body of Jesus 
in the sepulchre. In the midst of their grief and 
perplexity, two angels appeared in shining gar- 
ments, and declared that he was not there, but 
had risen as he had said he should. Now, what 
did they expect to find in the tomb of Joseph? 
Not his spirit certainly. They had witnessed 



THE RESURRECTION. 55 

his expiring agony upon the cross ; they had 
heard him commend his spirit into the hands of 
God; they had witnessed his giving up the 
ghost ; they had seen the Roman soldier, with 
a heart as hard as the steel in his weapon, thrust 
a spear deep into the side of the innocent Re- 
deemer, after he was already dead; they had 
taken particular notice of the manner in which 
his lifeless body had been laid in the tomb three 
days before. Luke xxiii, 55. 

What, I ask again, did they expect to find 
in the sepulchre ? Why the body, and nothing 
but the body. And therefore the answer of the 
angels could not have meant anything else than 
that his body, his natural body, had risen again. 

In Matthew's account of his resurrection we 
have some additional particulars : (Matt* xxviii, 
1-9) — " In the end of the sabbath, as it began 
to dawn toward the first day of the week, came 
Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see 
the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great 
earthquake : for the angel of the Lord descend- 
ed from heaven, and came and rolled back the 
stone from the door, and sat upon it. His 
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment 
white as snow : and for fear of him the keepers 
did shake, and became as dead men. And the 
angel answered and said unto the women, Fear 



56 THE RESURRECTION. 

not ye : for I know that ye seek Jesus, which 
was crucified. He is not here ; for he is risen, 
as he said. Come, see the place where the 
Lord lay : and go quickly, and tell his disciples 
that he is risen from the dead ; and behold, he 
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye 
see him: lo, I have told you. And they de- 
parted quickly from the sepulchre with fear 
and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples 
word. And as they went to tell his disciples, 
behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And 
they came and held him by the feet, and wor- 
shiped him." Look at the reason which the 
angel gives why the body of Jesus is not there : 
" He is not here ; for (or because) he is risen, 
as he said." But when had Jesus ever said a 
word about a spiritual body emerging at the 
moment of death? Professor B. talks about 
this, but our Saviour never. But how does 
the angel propose to convince these persons 
that the body was not yet in the tomb ? Why 
by inviting them to " come and see the place 
where the Lord lay? Now what had lain in 
the tomb ? Why the body of Jesus : and the 
reason why it was not there when these persons 
came, the angel affirms, was that he had risen 
again. Can anything be plainer, than that the 
angel of the Lord, who had previously descended 



THE RESURRECTION. 57 

and rolled away the stone from the door of the 
sepulchre, intended that these females should 
understand that the real body of Jesus had 
risen from the dead ? But look at another item 
in this history. "When these females, over- 
whelmed with astonishment, ran, with fear and 
great joy, to publish these things to the disci- 
ples, Jesus met them on their way, and exclaim- 
ed, All hail. What follows ? And they came 
and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. 
If it is true that they held Jesus by the feet, 
then had his body risen again. If the new 
theory is true, then this passage is not true. 
Those who believe the Bible will not hesitate 
in this matter. In Luke xxiv, 33-44, we 
have an account of what transpired between 
Christ and his disciples, in Jerusalem, the 
night after his resurrection. After two of the 
disciples of Christ, though not apostles, had 
been to a village, called Emmaus, and had seen 
our Saviour, and he had made known himself 
to them in the breaking of bread, " they rose 
up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, 
and found the eleven gathered together, and 
them that were with them, saying, The Lord is 
risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 
And they told what things were done in the 
way, and how he was known of them in break- 



58 THE RESURRECTION. 

ing of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus 
himself stood in the midst of them, and saith 
unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were 
terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they 
had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why 
are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in 
your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, 
that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a 
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me 
have. And when he had thus spoken, he 
showed them his hands and his feet. And 
while they yet believed not for joy, and won- 
dered, he said unto them, Have ye here any 
meat ? And they gave him a piece of a broiled 
fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, 
and did eat before them. And he said unto 
them, These are the words which I spake unto 
you, while I was yet with you, that all things 
must be fulfilled which were written in the law 
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, 
concerning me." 

In the history of the same event, as recorded 
by St. John, we have the additional item of in- 
formation relative to Thomas, who was not pre- 
sent with the other apostles, at their first inter- 
view with the risen Saviour : (John xx, 24-28) 
— " But Thomas, one of the twelve, called 
Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 



THE RESURRECTION. 59 

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We 
have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, 
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the 
nails, and put my finger into the print of the 
nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will 
not believe. And after eight days, again his 
disciples were within, and Thomas with them. 
Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and 
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy fin- 
ger, and behold my hands; and reach hither 
thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be 
not faithless, but believing. And Thomas an- 
swered and said unto him, My Lord and my 
God." 

In our examination of the preceding scrip- 
tures, it appeared most evident, that the angel 
of the Lord intended that those who came early 
to the sepulchre should believe that the real 
human body of our Saviour had risen from the 
dead. In the passages now under considera- 
tion it is equally evident that our Saviour him- 
self intended that the disciples should believe 
that his veritable body had risen. His disci- 
ples had been his daily and familiar companions 
for more than three years. They were familiar 
with his countenance, with his voice, and with 
all the circumstances of his person. Probably 



60 THE RESURRECTION. 

there was no person upon earth whom they 
could identify with more unerring certainty. 
But yet his sudden and unexpected appearance 
among them, when the "doors were shut" at 
night, excited their fears, and they supposed 
they had seen a spirit. But, after calming 
their fears, and soothing that perturbation of 
spirit which his sudden appearance among them 
had occasioned, he then appeals to their own 
senses in proof of the resurrection of his real 
body : " Feel me, and see that it is I myself: 
handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones, as ye see me have" He then showed 
them his hands and his feet. Did he not in- 
tend by this, that they should understand that 
his human body had risen again? For what 
other purpose did he require them to han- 
dle him? For what other purpose did he 
show them his own hands and feet ? For what 
other purpose did he declare that a spirit had 
not flesh and bones as he had, and as they saw 
him have? Was it true that our Saviour's 
resurrection body possessed " flesh and bones ?" 
Was it true that he showed them his hands, his 
real hands, and feet ? Is it true that they saw, 
and felt, and knew that he had flesh and bones, 
and hands and feet, after his resurrection ? To 
say they did not know this, is to accuse our 



THE RESURRECTION. 61 

Saviour with falsehood. To say they did know 
it, is to ruin the new theory. Who but an in- 
fidel can hesitate, for a moment, what course to 
take ? I would not say that the author of the 
new theory is an infidel, so far as to deny the 
Scriptures as a whole ; but on this particular 
doctrine his views are infidel to all intents and 
purposes. But our Saviour went still further 
in his design to convince the disciples that his 
body had risen : he ate in their presence. And, 
in the midst of these demonstrations of his real 
resurrection, our Saviour says to the disciples : 
" These are the words which I spake unto you, 
while I was yet with you, that all things must 
be fulfilled which were written in the law of 
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, 
concerning me." Luke xxiv, 44. Now one of 
these things which was " written in the Psalms 
concerning him" was that his flesh should rest 
in hope, and his body should not see corruption. 
But Thomas was not present on this occasion ; 
and, when the other disciples related to him 
what they had seen, it seeemed to him " incre- 
dible ;" and he declared he would not believe 
it, unless he should put his fingers into the 
prints of the nails, and thrust his hand into his 
side that had been pierced by the soldier's spear. 
Is it not perfectly evident from this, that Thomas 



62 THE RESURRECTION. 

understood the other disciples to affirm that the 
real body of Christ had risen from the dead? 
Why else should he speak of the " prints in his 
hands," and of his side that had been pierced ? 
The conclusion is irresistible. Bearing this in 
mind, mark what follows. Eight days after 
this, the disciples were again together, under 
circumstances very much like those of their first 
meeting, the " doors being shut," and Thomas 
was with them. And now Jesus appeared in 
the midst of them, as at the first time ; and, ad- 
dressing Thomas, says, " Reach hither thy fin- 
ger, and put it into the prints of the nails ; and 
reach forth thy hand, and thrust it into my side : 
and be not faithless, but believing." Our Sa- 
viour knew that Thomas had avowed that he 
would not be satisfied without this test ; and he 
appeals to this test itself. Thomas had under- 
stood the disciples to affirm that Christ's natural 
body had arisen. This he disbelieved, unless 
he should have evidence of a particular charac- 
ter. Our Saviour furnished the identical evi- 
dence he had called for ; and then tells him to 
be no longer faithless, but believing. Is it not 
as clear as the light of the sun, that our Saviour 
intended to convince Thomas that the very same 
body that had hung upon the cross, the very 
same hands and feet that had been nailed to the 



THE RESURRECTION. 63 

wood, the very same side that had been pierced 
with a spear, had risen again ? The evidence 
is absolutely conclusive to any sane mind. 

The advocates of the new theory are driven, 
then, irresistibly, to one of two conclusions : 
either to accuse the Saviour of the world 
with deliberate falsehood, or renounce their 
theory. 

And our Saviour's intention, in regard to 
Thomas, had the desired effect; for, while 
Thomas gazed upon the well-known countenance 
of his Master, and listened to his familiar voice, 
and saw that look of mingled reproof and com- 
passionate kindness, without, I imagine, waiting 
to thrust his hand into his side, he rushes to the 
embrace of his Redeemer, and exclaims, " My 
Lord and my God." 

Professor Bush says of the resurrection body 
of his theory, p. 70, " We may not be able to 
see it, to handle it, to analyze, or describe it, 
* * * * it lives again in a future state, because 
it never dies." But Christ's resurrection body 
could be " seen," "felt," " analyzed," and " de- 
scribed ;" and it was both dead and buried, and 
" lives again, because it" has risen from the dead, 
and not because it never died. Therefore, the 
resurrection body of our Saviour is not the re- 
surrection body of the new theory ; consequent- 



64 THE RESURRECTION. 

ly, the theory is false, so far as its application 
to this case is concerned. 

But there is yet another class of scriptures 
which ruins this modern doctrine of the resur- 
rection. I allude to those which represent 
Christ as the first that should rise from the 
dead. In Revelation i, 5, he is called " the 
first begotten of the dead." In 1 Cor. xv, 20, 
he is called the "first fruits" of the resurrec- 
tion. Both of these passages most evidently 
mean that Christ was the first who rose from 
the dead ; that is, who rose immortal. But in 
Acts xxvi, 23, it is declared expressly, that he 
was the first that should rise from the dead. 
How could it be true, by the new theory, that 
Christ was the first to rise from the dead, if the 
resurrection body is developed at the moment 
of death, and " is simply a future state or im- 
mortality?" Men had been rising, in this 
sense, according to the theory itself, for four 
thousand years. 

I have not adduced all the Scripture testi- 
mony on this subject of Christ's resurrection 
which might have been brought ; but if what 
has already been adduced fail of establishing 
the truth of a literal resurrection of our Sa- 
viour's material body, we may despair of prov- 
ing anything by testimony. 



THE RESURRECTION. 65 

Let us now see how this mass of cumulative 
evidence is disposed of by our author. 

1st. "It is nowhere expressly affirmed in 
Scripture that the identical material body of 
Christ arose." P. 152. 

We answer, it is nowhere expressly affirmed 
in Scripture that our Saviour had any " identical 
material body;" nor that anybody else ever 
"had any identical material body." Indeed, 
neither the word "identical" nor "material" 
occurs anywhere in the " Scriptures," in any 
connection whatever. Why not deny, then, 
that our Saviour, or anybody else, ever had 
any "identical material body?" There is the 
very same evidence that our Saviour's identical 
material body rose from the dead, that we have 
to prove that he had any "identical material 
body " at all : the very same. 

May we not expect, that in the subsequent 
progressive improvements of this new theory it 
will be denied that our Saviour had any material 
body ? The system will then have the merit of 
being consistent with itself, at least ; and that is 
certainly much more than it can claim, with any 
show of truth, at the present stage of develop- 
ment. 

But we affirm, and are ready to stake our 
reputation upon the issue, that the evidence is 
5 



66 THE RESURRECTION. 

even stronger from Scripture to prove the literal 
resurrection of our Saviour's body, than it would 
have been had the expression " identical mate- 
rial body" been substituted for the expressions 
actually employed. These Scriptural expres- 
sions constitute what logicians call a real defini- 
tion — a definition of a thing by enumerating the 
principal attributes of that thing. Thus, the 
body of our Saviour, which rose from the dead, 
according to the Scriptures, was the body which 
had been " killed " by being " crucified ;" the 
body which had "hands,'* and "feet," and 
" side," which " hands," and " feet," and " side," 
still bore the prints of the nails and spear which 
had pierced them while hanging upon the cross. 
This definition is more specific, as every man 
of Professor Bush's celebrity knows, or ought 
to know, than merely the expression, " identical 
material body." 

2d. " It seems to be a fair presumption, that 
the same body which rose, also ascended. But 
the evidence is certainly conclusive, that it was 
not a material body which ascended to heaven." 
P. 153. Pray where is this "conclusive evi- 
dence" to be found? We deny it utterly, and 
call for the proof. We admit " that the same 
body which rose also ascended," and conclusions 
the very reverse of our author's follow inevita- 



THE RESURRECTION. 67 

bly. Our author's argument reduced to form 
stands thus : 

1. The body which rose also ascended. 

2. But the body which ascended was not a 
material body. 

3. Therefore the body which rose was not a 
material body. 

Now the professor has not produced a particle 
of evidence to substantiate the minor proposi- 
tion, and we challenge him to produce any. The 
very reverse is positively and unequivocally 
proved in the Scriptures ; consequently his con- 
clusion is false. 

Let us begin then, as he begins. 

1. The body which rose also ascended. 

2. But the body which rose has been proved 
to be material, by the prints of the nails and 
spear, in the hands, feet, and side. 

3. Therefore the body which ascended was 
material. 

Logic must undergo a vast " progressive im- 
provement," before it can ever sanction the con- 
clusions of our author. 

3d. It is argued that the circumstances con- 
nected with our Saviour's appearance to Mary 
at the sepulchre — to the two disciples on their 
way to Emmaus — and also to the disciples the 
following evening, are incompatible with the 



68 THE RESURRECTION. 

notion of a material body. Let us see if this 
objection is any more reasonable than the last. 

1. Mary mistook the Saviour for the gardener. 
From this it is arguqd that it could not have 
been his material body which had risen. Now 
let it be remembered, that she came to the se- 
pulchre "very early in the morning," (Luke 
xxiv, 1,) " as it began to dawn, toward the first 
day of the week," (Matt, xxviii, 1,) but "was 
yet dark" (John xx, 1.) And where is there 
any difficulty in the case ? When it was not suf- 
ficiently light, to distinguish one person from 
another, Mary mistook our Saviour for the 
gardener ! 

2. In regard^ to his appearance to the two 
disciples as they were going to Emmaus, it is 
said, " Their eyes were holden that they shoidd 
not know him" Luke xxiv, 16. Our Saviour 
chose to make himself known to them at the 
breaking of bread, and in this act their eyes 
were opened, and they knew him. Verse 31. Is 
there any difficulty in the way of a material 
body here ? Our I^ord chose not to make him- 
self known unto them, until their journey was 
finished, a journey of only a little more than 
an hour, preferring to do it when they were 
quietly seated at the table, and on this account 
their " eyes were holden." Are not these very 



THE RESURRECTION. 69 

flimsy objections to be arrayed against a doc- 
trine supported by such a mass of evidence as 
we have examined? 

3. Let us now examine the circumstances of 
his appearance among the disciples when the 
" door was shut." The objection is, that a ma- 
terial body could not suddenly appear in a room 
having the doors closed and bolted, without a 
miracle. P. 153. Well, what then? Suppose 
a miracle was wrought ? "Was not our Saviour 
once found walking on the sea in the midst of a 
dreadful storm ? And can a material body walk 
upon the boisterous waves of the sea without a 
miracle ? What then is the conclusion ? Why, 
according to our author, that our Saviour never 
had any material body// But he argues in 
this very connection, that our Saviour wrought 
a miracle in assuming the appearance of a ma- 
terial body, with hands, and feet, and side, that 
had been pierced, and still bore the prints. And 
all just for the purpose of making Thomas and 
the other disciples believe that his material body 
had risen, when, according to his own theory, no 
such body had ever risen at all, and concludes, 
finally, " that a miracle must have been wrought 
on either view." That is, if his body was mate- 
rial, a miracle was wrought in suddenly enter- 
ing a closed room ; and if his body was not ma- 



70 THE RESURRECTION. 

terial, or rather if he had no material body, a 
miracle must have been wrought in assuming 
all the appearances of one. So say we ; with 
just this difference, that by our " view," a mira- 
cle was wrought to make the disciples believe 
the truth, and by his " view," a miracle was 
wrought to make them believe a falsehood. For 
he admits, and even argues, on p. 167, that our 
Saviour intended that the disciples should be- 
lieve that his material body had risen ! ! and 
" that the apostles believed the doctrine, and 
preached it," p. 165; that such were their 
crude conceptions, " that they could not at once 
come to a sudden recognition of a spiritual pre- 
sence." However, he thinks that " subsequent- 
ly they may have come to entertain more cor- 
rect notions on the subject." " At all events," 
says he, " there is no reason why their know- 
ledge should be the limit of ours." Strange ! I 
wonder what we know about it, except what we 
have learned from them ? 

But let us go on and see the measure of ab- 
surdity filled to the very brim. 

4. It is maintained that our Saviour's pre- 
tended resurrection on the third day was only 
" the putting forth of a visible effect ;" that his 
showing his hands and his feet to his disciples, 
as well as his eating in their presence, were 



THE RESURRECTION. 71 

"optical" "illusions." It is true, he does 
not join these two words together, so as to form 
the phrase " optical illusions :" but says his 
showing his hands, &c, were "optical acts," 
pp. 154, 155, and then says, " When we consider 
the object to be attained by such an illusion, 
we see nothing inconsistent or unworthy the 
divine impersonification of truth in having re- 
course to it" ! ! ! P. 155. So then we have the 
earthquake, the descending of the angel, to roll 
away the stone from the door of the sepulchre — 
the announcement of the angels that our Saviour 
had risen on the third morning, all resolved into 
a solemn farce ; the mere " putting forth of a 
visible eifect," and " the appearance " of our Sa- 
viour's body still bearing the prints of violence, 
all resolved into an " optical" " illusion" Yea 
more, and the Saviour of the world perpetrating 
a deliberate falsehood, and that too, in regard to 
the most important event that ever transpired 
in our world ! ! ! I ask, is not the measure of 
absurdity full ? The God of eternal truth join- 
ing with angels to practice a pious fraud — a 
kind of miraculous juggling — a species of opti- 
cally miraculous and illusive legerdemain ! ! 
Such are the monstrous and abominable absur- 
dities of a system which sets up enfeebled hu- 
man reason against the plain teachings of God's 



72 THE RESURRECTION. 

word. Mr. B. thinks such an " optical illusion " 
is worthy the character of God, " considering 
the object to be attained by it." But what was 
this object ? Why to make the disciples and the 
world believe what was not true, that the mate- 
rial body of our Lord had risen from the dead. 
Such "optical" farcical illusions are worthy the 
system which has resorted to them, but let them 
not be charged upon the God of truth. Will 
our author's notions of " progressive improve- 
ment" help him in this extremity? If so, he 
is desired to tell us, by what progressive im- 
provement in the laws of optics, in^the sense of 
seeing, hearing, and feeling, the stupendous 
scenes of our Saviour's resurrection, together 
with many of the bodies of the saints which were 
uncovered by the previous earthquake, and which 
arose after his resurrection, and went into the 
holy city and appeared unto many, are all re- 
solved into an " optical illusion ;" a mere phan- 
tasm — an illusive spectral nonentity ! And by 
what "progressive improvement" in the moral 
character of God has it now become consistent for 
Him who, amid the terrible thunderings of Sinai, 
said in a voice that shook the earth, Thou shalt 
not lie, to lend the influence of his own lofty 
example to the most glaring falsehood ? 

5. It becomes necessary for this system, after 



THE RESURRECTION. 73 

denying that the body of our Lord ever rose 
from the dead, to tell us what became of it. 
Well, here you have it : " The body which hung 
upon the cross was miraculously resolved into 
its primitive elements " ! ! We shall cease to 
be astonished hereafter at anything our author 
shall say. The measure of absurdity already 
full, is now "pressed down, shaken together, 
and running over." Why did not the angel say 
to the distressed disciples, who were perplexed 
and overwhelmed with grief, at not finding the 
Saviour's body at the sepulchre, " Behold, he 
is not here, he has been miraculously dissolved 
and resolved to his primitive elements ;" and 
not say what was not true, that he had risen 
again ? This, if it had been true, would have 
been a sufficient reason for his body's not being 
there. But the angel says, " It is not here, for, 
or because, it is risen again, as he said." Was 
a falsehood better than the truth ? Our author 
thinks so, " considering the object to be attain- 
ed," namely, to make the disciples and the tvorld 
believe a false doctrine. 

But let us look at this position in the light of 
the prophecy of David, which prophecy, as we 
have already seen, both Peter and Paul apply 
to the resurrection of Christ. Our Saviour is 
represented as addressing the Father, and say- 



74 THE RESURRECTION. 

ing, " My flesh shall rest in hope, for thou wilt 
not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." 
" My flesh shall rest in hope." Hope of what ? 
"Why speedy dissolution in the tomb of Joseph. 
It shall " hope " to be " dissolved, and resolved 
to its primitive elements," within less than three 
days after death. And how was the other part 
of the prophecy fulfilled, namely, " Neither 
wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corrup- 
tion ?" Why, it was not only not fulfilled at all, 
but a miracle was wrought to prevent its fulfill- 
ment. He saw corruption, and that too so rapid- 
ly that it took a miracle to accomplish it. If 
the author of the new doctrine had delibe- 
rately set himself to work to get up a system 
which would destroy all confidence in the Bible, 
I see not how he could have more effectually 
answered his purpose. If the apostles, and the 
world through the apostles, have been deceived 
in the matter of our Saviour's resurrection, who 
can tell in how many other things they have not 
been deceived ? Well may the pious Christian 
exclaim in reference to such miserable theories, 
in the language of weeping Mary, " They have 
taken away my Lord, and I know not where 
they have laid him." 

If the new theory was a mere matter of opin- 
ion, in regard to matters of minor importance, 



THE RESURRECTION. 75 

the case would be different. But it strikes at 
the very heart of the Christian system. It 
lays the ax at the very root of the tree 
of life. It seeks to banish from the earth 
a truth upon which hangs the hope of the 
world. And such is the tenacity with which 
it clings to a position once taken, that heaven 
and earth must give way before it. It robs 
man of all confidence, either in the Bible or the 
God of the Bible ; it is a system which aims a 
fatal blow at the great and fundamental doctrine 
of the atonement, because, " He that hath ears 
to hear let him hear ;" it sets forth the Saviour 
of the world as an impostor, and the God of 
eternal truth as practicing falsehood. The re- 
surrection of our blessed Lord is truth too 
precious in its character and bearings to be 
mangled and murdered in this manner. It takes 
too deep a hold upon our deathless interests to 
be thus fretted away to nothing. The resurrec- 
tion was the grand crowning miracle in the stu- 
pendous scheme of human redemption, and the 
one upon which our Saviour himself chiefly re- 
lied to substantiate his claim as Redeemer of 
the world. To destroy confidence in this doc- 
trine, therefore, is to unsettle the very founda- 
tions of our holy Christianity. All our fondly 
cherished hopes perish. All our bright pros- 



76 THE RESURRECTION. 

pects are blasted for ever. All our most cherish- 
ed anticipations are to realize only a gloomy- 
wilderness of dreary desolation. What we fond- 
ly imagined was the sun shining in his strength, 
was but the " illusive " blaze of the meteor whose 
momentary glow is succeeded by a dark, moon- 
less, starless night, when the chill-dews of de- 
spair for ever lower over our future destinies. 
Is this saying too much ? Then hear the apos- 
tle Paul : " If Christ be not risen, then is our 
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, 
and we are found false witnesses of God ; be- 
cause we have testified of God that he raised up 
Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that the 
dead rise not. And if Christ be not raised, 
your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ 
are perished" 1 Cor. xv, 14, 15, 17, 18. 

Verily, we must have something more sub- 
stantial than mere appearances on which to rest 
our hopes of heaven. Our crimes are too hei- 
nous — our depravity is too deep and damning, 
to be cleansed by such means. Our hearts are 
too "deceitful and desperately wicked" to be 
saved by deceit and falsehood. The imperish- 
able interests which cluster around the scenes 
of eternal retribution are too vast and important 
to be trusted to mere " optical illusions," whose 



THE RESURRECTION. 77 

laudable "object" is to deceive, I repeat it, we 
must have something better. And blessed be 
God we have something better. " Now is Christ 
risen from the dead, and become the first fruits 
of them that slept." If our hearts are ready to 
die within us, when we contemplate the last 
mysterious agony of our dying Lord, our hearts 
also leap with overflowing gratitude and joy, 
when we see him rise again, all glorious and 
immortal. It is true he suffers the death of a 
malefactor. The innocent Jesus submits to a 
wicked and unlawful sentence. He yields his 
back to the scourges — his temples to the " crown 
of thorns " — his cheeks to the hand of violence 
— his hands and feet to be torn by the nails that 
fasten them to the cross ; and all this is nothing 
compared to the unutterable agony his spirit 
endures while a world's guilt presses upon him, 
and like myriads of poisoned arrows pierces his 
very soul. There he hangs upon the cross : the 
Creator of the world ! his blood flowing down 
upon his body till it stains all his raiment. 
There he hangs, bleeding, agonizing, dying ; his 
friends at a little distance weeping, and his ene- 
mies insulting and deriding him. When the 
great purposes of his suffering are accomplish- 
ed, he cries, " It is finished," and meekly bows 
his head in death. His enemies now triumph, 



78 THE RESURRECTION. 

and his friends give up all for lost. How little 
do they understand that his death, which for the 
present blasts all their prospects, is nevertheless 
the hope of the world ! 

The sabbath draws near, and his friends, hav- 
ing obtained permission, take down his body from 
the cross, and carefully inter it in the tomb of 
Joseph. The sabbath comes, and again all is 
quiet in Jerusalem. His enemies enjoy a kind 
of infernal satisfaction in the belief that they 
have now rid themselves of one whose holy life 
and pointed reproofs exposed their own moral 
deformity. They are now confident that they 
have seen an end of the obnoxious Nazarene, 
and shall soon see an end of the despised sect 
of his followers. His friends, alarmed for their 
own safety, retire in lonely groups, and in plain- 
tive silence mourn over the sad catastrophe. 
But does the scene end here ? No, no ! When 
the time came which had been fixed in the 
counsels of eternal wisdom, to put an end to the 
triumphs of earth and hell — the God-head that 
had dwelt in him — the divinity which had com- 
manded the raging elements into calm submis- 
sion, stood forth in the " greatness of his 
strength," and said to these storms of hellish 
wrath, " Thus far shalt thou come, but no fur- 
ther: and here shall thy proud waves be 



THE RESURRECTION. 73 

stayed." " In a moment, in the twinkling of 
an eye/' the bands of death are sundered, — the 
" king of terrors" is vanquished ; and with im- 
mortal and God-like energy Jesus rises from 
the dead : thus "life and immortality are brought 
to light through the gospel " by the resurrection 
of our Lord from the dead. Thus he proclaims, 
as well by deed as by word, " I am the light of 
the world." And now " he ever lives" not only 
" to make intercession for us," but to hold up 
the lamp, that lights the pathway " through the 
dark valley, and the shadow of death," to the 
regions of unfading glory. 

Then let our hearts' most cherished affections 
entwine themselves around this blessed doctrine 
of the resurrection. And may the Spirit of 
him that raised up Jesus from the dead so 
dwell in us that he who raised up Christ from 
the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies 
by his Spirit that dwelleth in us. "Who shall 
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned 
like unto Christ's glorious body." 



80 THE RESURRECTION. 



PART III, 

THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT CONTINUED— THE 

RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD GENERALLY 

CONSIDERED. 

Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that 
God should raise the dead ? — Acts xxvi, 8. 

Having seen that the Scriptures affirm clear- 
ly and unequivocally the " literal " resurrection 
of our Saviour's " material body," let us next 
examine the Scriptural evidence in favor of the 
literal resurrection of mankind generally. 

And here, as before, we have the testimony 
of both the Old and the New Testament ; al- 
though life and immortality are more fully 
brought to light in the New. The following 
passage from Job is both a prophecy of the 
Messiah, and of his own resurrection : (Job xix, 
25-27)— "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, 
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon 
the earth : and though after my skin, worms 
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see 
God : whom I shall see for myself, and mine 
eyes shall behold and not another, though my 
reins be consumed within me." I am aware 
that Professor B. finds a great deal of fault 
with this translation, and this is characteristic 



THE RESURRECTION. 81 

of almost all who maintain false doctrines. 
Those who are not satisfied with the doctrines 
of the Bible, are generally dissatisfied with the 
translation, and always find a meaning by a dif- 
ferent rendering which suits their theory : and 
more especially if they avail themselves of what 
I believe our author denominates the " elastici- 
ty of import ;" that is, a capability of being bent 
during the experiment with them entirely out 
of their original positions — or pressed entirely 
out of their proper proportions, or stretched till 
they have as little body as the resurrection he 
contends for. 

There are several considerations which go to 
show that Job in the scripture just quoted pro- 
phesies of the resurrection of the body. 1. It 
is connected with his knowledge that his Re- 
deemer, who was then alive, should stand upon 
the earth in the latter days — alluding probably 
to Christ's coming to suffer, and to rise from the 
dead. 2. It is an event which will take place 
after worms will have consumed his body. 
3. He is to see God in his flesh, that is, in his 
material body — his eyes shall see him when he 
comes to judge the world, and when " every eye 
shall see him." 4. This event cannot be hin- 
dered even by a total decomposition of his body, 
" Though my reins be consumed within me." 
6 



82 THE RESURRECTION. 

Isaiah prophesies of the resurection in xxvi, 
19 : " Thy dead men shall live, together with 
my dead hody shall they arise. Awake and 
sing, ye that dwell in dust, for the dew is as the 
dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the 
dead" 

In this passage Professor B. labors to show 
that " my dead body means my dead hody" Cor- 
rect for once. And how does this show that it 
is not a literal resurrection? Answer who 
can. 

1. Dead men should live. 2. They shall 
rise with the dead body of the person speaking. 
3. They that dwell in dust are to awake and 
sing. 4. Because the "earth shall cast her 
dead." 

In Hosea xiii, 14, we have another prophecy : 
" I will ransom them from the power of the grave, 
I will redeem them from death. O death, I will 
be thy plagues ! O grave, I will be thy destruc- 
tion !" That this passage alludes to the resur- 
rection is made certain by the fact that St. Paul 
quotes it in a discourse expressly on the re- 
surrection, in 1 Cor. xv. 

In Daniel xii, we have a prophecy still more 
distinct. 1. " And at that time shall Michael 
stand up, the great prince which standeth for 
the children of thy people ; and there shall be 



THE RESURRECTION. 83 

a time of trouble, such as there never was since 
there was a nation even to that same time : and 
at that time thy people shall be delivered, every- 
one that shall be found written in the book. 
2. " And many of them that sleep in the dust 
of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting 
life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." 3. " And they that be wise shall shine 
as the brightness of the firmament ; and they 
that turn many to righteousness as the stars for 
ever and ever." Here the expression " many 
of them that slept in the dust," &c, is equivalent 
to, as many as, or all that slept hi the dust of the 
earth. Some would be still alive when this 
event should happen. m 

We have an example of a similar use of the 
word " many" in Rom. v. The apostle is show- 
ing that the benefits of the atonement are co- 
existent with human depravity. In ver. 12, he 
says, " Death passed upon all, for all have 
sinned." But in the 15th verse he says, " For 
if through the offense of one, many be dead, 
much more the grace of God, and the gift by 
grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath 
abounded unto ' many.' " Then again in ver. 
18, " Therefore as by the offense of one judg- 
ment came upon all men to condemnation, even 
so by the righteousness of one the free gift came 



84 THE RESURRECTION. 

upon all men/' &c. But again in the very 
next verse lie says, " For as by one man's dis- 
obedience 'many' were made sinners, so by 
the obedience of one shall ' many ' be made 
righteous." 

Prof. B. thinks the prophecy just quoted from 
Daniel has the same or a similar meaning as 
EzekieFs vision of " the dry bones," and conse- 
quently, that it cannot be a literal resurrection 
which is spoken of. That the resurrection 
spoken of by Ezekiel, in the vision referred to, 
was figurative all admit : for it is expressly said 
at the time, and in the immediate connection, 
" Son of man, these dry bones are the whole 
house of Israel." But the prophecy of Daniel 
will not admit of such a figurative signification for 
the following reason. Wherever the terms life 
and death occur, in the same connection in the 
Scriptures, they are exactly the opposite one of 
the other. If the death spoken of is literal 
death, then the life opposed to that death is 
literal, or natural life. If the death is a moral 
death, or a death in trespasses and in sins, the 
life opposed to that death is a moral life, or a 
life of faith and holiness. If the death is a po- 
litical death, or political adversity, the life 
opposed to that death is political prosperity. If 
the death spoken of is a death to sin, the life 



THE RESURRECTION. 85 

opposed to that death is a life in sin. Every 
person at all acquainted with the Scriptures will 
readily call up in his mind numerous verifica- 
tions of this principle, and he will not find 
an exception if he search the Scriptures from 
beginning to end. This use of language grows 
out of the very nature of the case ; as everybody 
knows that natural life is the very reverse of 
natural death, and all other uses of these terms 
are borrowed from their literal import. 

Let us now apply the principle just stated to 
the " vision of the dry bones." The death spo- 
ken of was both political and spiritual. The 
children of Israel at the time of this vision were 
in bondage. Their temple had been destroyed, 
and they themselves in consequence of their 
sins had been carried away captive to Babylon. 
Under these circumstances the vision was shown 
to Ezekiel. And after he had prophesied upon 
these bones, and bone had come to bone, and 
sinew, and flesh, and skin had covered the bones, 
and life had entered the bodies of the vast mul- 
titude, so that they stood up a great army, 
then the Lord said to Ezekiel, (ver. 11-14,) " Son 
of man, these bones are the whole house of 
Israel : behold they say, Our bones are dried 
and our hope is lost : we are cut off from our 
parts. Therefore prophesy, and say unto them, 



86 THE RESURRECTION. 

Thus saith the Lord God ; Behold, my people, 
I will open your graves, and cause you to come 
up out of your graves, and bring you into the 
land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am 
the Lord ; when I have opened your graves, O 
my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 
and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall 
live, and I shall place you in your own land : 
then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken 
it, and performed it, saith the Lord." 

Here is 1st, a moral death. The life which 
is set opposite to this is expressed in verse 14, 
" And I shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall 
live." And 2d, a political death. The life opposed 
to this is expressed in verses 12-14, "I will 
open your graves, and cause you to come up 
out of your graves into the land of Israel, and 
I shall place you in your own land." 1. Their 
hope was lost. And 2, they were cut off from 
their parts, verse 11. But God would give 
them his Spirit ; and 3, he would restore them to 
their own country. The language is figurative, 
but the reality in which the figure has its origin 
is a literal death, and a literal resurrection ; so 
that the passage, after all, affords an argument 
in favor of the resurrection of the body. 

But is the passage which we have quoted 
from Daniel figurative? If so, what does the 



THE RESURRECTION. 87 

sleep or death in the dust mean? Whatever 
it means, to awake and come out of the dust 
must mean the very reverse. Well then, sup- 
pose it means political death — political degrada- 
tion and adversity. Then to come forth from 
this death would be to enjoy a life of political 
prosperity. But "some awake to shame and 
everlasting contempt" What kind of political 
prosperity is this? Political shame and con- 
tempt are just what the political death signifies. 
Are the death and the resurrection from death 
the same thing ? Then it cannot mean a politi- 
cal death. Let us see whether spiritual death 
will do any better. If the death is a death in 
trespasses and sins, then awaking from this 
death is coming forth to a life of purity and 
holiness. But some that were dead " awake to 
shame and everlasting contempt." What kind 
of holiness and purity is this ? How hard it is 
to make God's word teach false doctrines ! 

These passages are sufficient to account for 
the prevalence of the belief in this doctrine 
among the Jews, both before and after our Sa- 
viour appeared among them. And that this 
doctrine did extensively prevail is abundantly 
evident from the history of the times, both sa- 
cred and profane. Herod's views of John the 
Baptist show this. A sect of the Sadducees 



88 THE RESURRECTION. 

disbelieved it, but all the rest of the Jews were 
firm believers in the doctrine. Paul, in his de- 
fense before Felix, declared, that "the Jews 
acknowledged that there should be a resurrec- 
tion, both of the just and the unjust." Profes- 
sor B., while commenting on this passage, says, 
" The Jews did not believe in the resurrection 
of the unjust." Well, Paul says they did, and 
all who think him the better authority of the 
two will believe his testimony. That the Jews 
believed this doctrine is still further evident 
from the conversation which passed between 
our Saviour and Martha in regard to Lazarus. 
Jesus says unto her, u Thy brother shall rise 
again. Martha saith unto him, I know he shall 
rise again in the resurrection of the last day? 
Our author varies the translation here, and 
makes Martha say, " I know he shall rise again 
in the consolation" and contends that the Greek 
word anastasis sometimes has this signification. 
Now the same word occurs four times, in three 
consecutive verses of this conversation, with 
only this difference, that in two places the noun 
is used instead of the verb ; a noun that has 
the same signification with the verb, and the 
same orthography, so far as the derivation will 
permit, and the noun and verb have the same 
relation to each other, as permit and permission, 



THE RESURRECTION. 89 

or as baptize and baptism. Why then select one 
word in the connection for consolation, and let 
the others have their proper signification ? Let 
the criticism be consistent with itself, and then 
we have Martha, as soon as she heard that our 
Saviour had arrived, going out to meet him, and 
saying, " If thou hadst been here, my brother 
had not died. . . . Jesus saith unto her, Thy 
brother shall console (anastesetai) again. Mar- 
tha saith unto him, I know that he shall console 
(anastesetai) again in the consolation (anastasei) 
at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the 
consolation (anastasis) and the life." To fairly 
state such criticism is to refute it. From these 
scriptures then, and many others, it is most 
certainly evident, that the Jews in our Saviour's 
time did believe in the resurrection of the body, 
and they used the term anastasis, which is ren- 
dered resurrection, to denote it. Bearing this 
fact in mind, let us examine our Saviour's tes- 
timony on this subject, as recorded in John v, 
28, 29: "Marvel not at this; for the hour is 
coming, in the which all that are in the graves 
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they 
that have done good, unto the resurrection of 
life ; and they that have done evil, unto the re- 
surrection of damnation." No ingenuity can 
ever prevent this passage of Scripture from 



90 THE RESURRECTION. 

teaching both a future resurrection of the body, 
and a future retribution. 

Professor Bush thinks this passage is a 
" reference of some " sort to the passage 
from Daniel which has been quoted. Well, 
suppose it has a reference of some sort to 
that prophecy. We have seen that that pro- 
phecy itself refers to the resurrection of the 
body. But there is no evidence that our Sa- 
viour had his eye particularly upon the passage 
from Daniel. He gives no intimation that what 
he utters was a quotation. He doubtless speaks 
of the same event, and his teachings, as might 
be expected, perfectly agree with those of 
Daniel. Our author has not given his views 
of the meaning of this passage except by impli- 
cation, as we shall see more fully from the se- 
quel. However, we can gather from what he 
has said, that he would have us believe that it 
is a moral resurrection here spoken of; because 
it refers in some way, he thinks, to the prophe- 
cy of Daniel, and Daniel's prophecy he thinks 
refers to Ezekiel's vision ; and Ezekiel's vision 
teaches a moral resurrection. But let us see 
if the passage under consideration teaches a 
moral resurrection. As we have already seen, 
the death and resurrection here must be exactly 
the opposites the one of the other. If the re- 



THE RESURRECTION. 91 

surrection here spoken of is a moral resurrec- 
tion, then the death which is opposed to it is a 
moral death ; that is, a death " in trespasses and 
in sins." To come forth from this death is 
to come forth to a life of purity and happiness. 
Well, then, " the hour is coming, in the which 
all that are in the graves of sin and moral death 
shall come forth; they that have done good!" 
What! done good? Dead and buried in sin, 
and yet been doing good ? Is a man when dead 
and buried, alive in the very same sense in 
which he is dead? Dead in trespasses and 
sins, and yet the condition of their coming forth 
unto the resurrection of life (that is, holiness 
and purity) is their having done good, that is, 
having been holy and pure, while dead and 
buried in sin. But look at the other part of 
the verse. " They that have done evil, to the 
resurrection of damnation" Of course all that 
were dead, had done evil, if the death was a 
death in trespasses and sins. To come forth 
from this death is to come forth to a life of holi- 
ness and purity, and yet this holiness and puri- 
ty is the resurrection of damnation ! May the 
good Lord deliver us from such holiness and 
purity. Such a construction resolves the whole 
passage into a mass of absurd nonsense. But 
let us see if the word " consolation" in the place 



92 THE RESURRECTION. 

of " resurrection/' will not answer a better pur- 
pose. Then the last clause will read, " They 
that have done evil shall come forth to the ' con- 
solation ' of damnation." A poor consolation, I 
am thinking. 

But it is argued that the death spoken of in 
verses 24, 25, preceding the passage under 
consideration, is evidently a spiritual death, 
and the life a spiritual life. 1. We deny that 
there is any evidence that the death mentioned 
in verse 25 is a moral death; and 2. Admit- 
ting that it is, we deny that it affords the least 
evidence, that the death spoken of in verses 28, 
29, is such. The whole connection goes to 
show, that the death and life mentioned in verse 
25 have their literal import. Our Saviour had 
just healed a man of an " infirmity" with which 
he had been afflicted for thirty-eight years. 
The Jews found fault with him because he had 
done it on the sabbath. He justifies himself by 
asserting his divinity, and declaring, that "as 
the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth 
them," that is, brings them to life, " even so the 
Son quickeneth, (g-cjonotel,) brings to life whom 
he will." Verse 21. There is no evidence that 
previous to this period our Saviour had raised 
to life any that had been dead; but he says, 
(verse 25,) " The hour is coming, and now is/ 5 



THE RESURRECTION. 93 

the period was just at hand, when the dead 
should hear his voice, and they that heard should 
live. And this was literally fulfilled when he 
cried aloud, " Lazarus, come forth." But they 
marveled at this. Was there anything very 
marvelous in the declaration, that those who 
should hear his voice, that is, who should listen 
to, and obey his precepts, would thereby cease 
from their sins, and live holy lives ? These 
were the very precepts he uttered, and which 
commended themselves to the understanding and 
the conscience of all who heard him. It appears 
to me, that the scope of our Saviour's argument 
with the Jews was this : that he being the Son 
of God, and being " equal with God," had power 
and authority not only to raise up the sick and 
infirm, but to raise up even the dead body, 
when life was extinct : that the Jews should not 
marvel, that he, being God, should restore life 
to a dead body, while its organization was yet 
comparatively perfect : for the time would come 
when all who had been dead for ages, and their 
bodies mingled with the elements, should be 
restored again to immortal life by his Almighty 
power. I say that this appears to me the ob- 
vious scope of the argument, but others may 
view it differently ; and I will not insist upon 
this interpretation ; but will now admit, for the 



94 THE RESURRECTION. 

sake of the argument, that the death spoken of 
in verse 25 is a moral death, and then show 
that the death and resurrection, in verses 28, 29, 
are not figurative, but literal. 

1. If the death spoken of in verse 25 is 
a moral death, all the subjects of it were dead 
in sin, and of course none of them had been 
doing good; but some of those mentioned in 
verses 28, 29, had been doing good, and conse- 
quently were not dead in sins, but were dead 
literally, before the resurrection. 

2. If the death in verse 25 was figurative, 
then those who came out of a death in sin to a 
life of holiness and purity, did not come forth to 
a resurrection of damnation : but some, mention- 
ed in verses 28, 29, shall come forth to the re- 
surrection of damnation ; therefore, the death 
and resurrection, in verses 28, 29, are not a 
figurative or moral death and resurrection. 

3. To suppose that verse 25 speaks of a 
moral resurrection, and that verses 28, 29 refer 
to the same thing, is to make our Saviour give 
a very strange reason why the Jews should not 
marvel at what he had said in verse 25. His 
argument would stand thus : " Do not marvel 
at what I have said, namely, that the morally 
dead, who hear the voice of the Son of God, 
shall live, for the morally dead who hear the 



THE RESURRECTION. 95 

voice of the Son of God shall live /" Does this 
sound like the reasoning of Him " who spake as 
never man spake ?" 

4. But there is a difference in the time of 
the two events. The one was then present, the 
other was future. But it may be said, that the 
contrast in the two cases, and that wherein the 
second was more marvelous than the first, con- 
sisted in this, that in the first case only a few 
comparatively were raised, but in the second a 
great many. But why make this distinction 
between these passages, if both refer to the very 
same thing ? Besides, is it any more marvel- 
ous, that a great number should be raised than 
that a few should, if they were all raised in the 
very same sense ? 

5. If the death in the first instance was a 
death in sin, the coming forth, or rising from this 
death, would of itself be a sufficient description 
of the condition of those who had been the sub- 
jects of this moral death; for as the death was 
a death in sin, the life from the dead would be 
salvation from sin. And in verse 25 it is sim- 
ply said, " They that hear shall live" But in 
verses 28, 29, the condition of those who rise is 
still further defined : " Some to the resurrection 
of life, and some to the resurrection of damna- 
tion." 



96 THE RESURRECTION. 

This one passage of Scripture is an everlast- 
ing refutation, both of Universalism and of the 
new theory of the resurrection. I have classed 
these two doctrines together here, because they 
both criticize and torture this passage of Scrip- 
ture, as they do most others relating to this sub- 
ject, in precisely the same manner; and to re- 
fute the one is to refute the other, so far as this 
passage and many others are concerned. 

But while this passage declares that all that 
are in the graves shall come forth, Professor 
Bush says multitudes of the dead are not in 
their graves at all. But who does not see that 
the general expression, " all that are in their 
graves," means all the dead ? This I must say 
is a most puerile objection. What if some are 
not in their graves ? Perhaps they " sleep in 
the dust of the earth" elsewhere. Daniel saw 
all such come forth. Perhaps some are in the 
sea. But John saw the sea give up the dead 
which were in it. But if there are others who 
are neither "in their graves," nor "in the dust of 
the earth," nor " in the sea," they are within the 
empire of death somewhere. But the revelator 
saw death itself give up the dead which were 
in it. 

It is evident that our author had strong 
misgivings in regard to his theory when he 



THE RESURRECTION. 97 

compared it with the passage from John, just 
examined. Hear him: "This passage is un- 
doubtedly the strongest in the New Testament, 
in favor of the common view of the resurrec- 
tion." And why should it not be, when our 
Saviour set himself expressly to state the doc- 
trine? He continues: "It is unquestionable, 
that our Lord speaks in this passage in stronger 
terms than he usually adopts in regard to the 
resurrection of the dead." P. 234 Again, he 
says, " The passage, as understood in its literal 
import, does certainly encounter the force of that 
cumulative mass of evidence, built upon rational 
and philosophical grounds, which we have ar- 
rayed against any statement of the doctrine that 
would imply the participation of the body in that 
rising again which is predicated of the dead (!) 
We do not, by any means, affirm that the con- 
clusions from that source to which we have 
come, are sufficient of themselves to countervail 
the rebutting conclusions which may be formed 
from the present text. All we would say is, 
that they have weight, and, consequently, we 
are not required, or rather are not at liberty, 
at once to dismiss them." P. 235. 

Really, this looks more like coming to him- 
self than anything else I have found in his 
book. But he soon falls back upon his old 
7 



98 THE RESURRECTION. 

train of thinking, and says, on p. 237, " So far 
as we are capable of forming a judgment, the 
evidence from reason preponderates in favor of 
an immediate entrance, at death, upon the resur- 
rection state. This evidence we have seen to 
be confirmed by a multitude of passages, which 
yield this more readily and naturally than any 
other sense. But in the text under considera- 
tion, and perhaps a few others, the doctrine of a 
future simultaneous resurrection seems to be 
explicitly taught. Here, then, we are reduced 
to a new dilemma. [It appears he has been 
reduced to dilemmas before.] The character 
of the difficulty is changed. It is not so much 
now a conflict between reason and revelation, 
as an apparent conflict between one part of 
revelation and another." And now our author 
applies himself, with commendable zeal, to re- 
concile these descrepancies. 

Let us now examine the process by which 
the passages of Scripture, alluded to in the pre- 
ceding extract, are made to " yield this [the au- 
thor's] sense more easily and naturally than 
any other." 

In the first place, he has made his " rational 
deductions the criterion of truth, in regard to 
the meaning of the inspired word." Then com- 
mencing with passages which contain the word 



THE RESURRECTION. 99 

resurrection, without particularly defining and 
defending, in every case, a literal resurrection, 
he concludes that they must teach his notions 
of the doctrine, because they are so consonant 
with his " rational deductions." Now, it is not 
to be supposed that after the doctrine of the 
resurrection had been fairly explained by Christ 
himself, and fully exemplified in his own resur- 
rection, which was made a pattern and a proof 
of the resurrection of believers, every one who 
alluded to it would always stop and define it, 
and prove that it was a real bodily resurrection. 
They knew that the people to whom they spoke 
understood it to be a literal resurrection, and no 
other. Such passages, therefore, are not the 
passages to be relied on as proofs of a particular 
doctrine, merely because that doctrine suits our 
notions, and the particular passages do not con- 
tradict the doctrine. In this way every doctrine 
of the Bible could be disproved, and every false 
doctrine that was ever thought of could be estab- 
lished. Suppose some other to start up, full of 
" progressive improvements" and "rational de- 
ductions," and assert that men have neither soul 
nor body after death. He could find a " multi- 
tude of passages" where the words "soul" 
"body" and "death" occur, which, in their par- 
ticular connection, would not contradict his pecu- 



100 THE RESURRECTION. 

liar doctrine. Indeed, if he made his " rational 
deductions the criterion of truth, in regard to the 
meaning of the inspired word" in relation to 
these passages, he would be very likely to con- 
clude that "they yielded this sense, [his new 
doctrine,] more easily and naturally than any 
other." And so of any other false notion. 

We shall now see how Professor B. makes 
those passages, whose object is to treat of the 
resurrection, " yield" his own particular " sense" 
of the doctrine. 

While commenting upon the last part of the 
fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, and 1 Thess. 
iv, 17, both of which are brought in before the 
passage from John v, 28, 29, which gives him 
so much trouble, he says, " But we here en- 
counter a great difficulty in view of our previous 
position, that the resurrection of every believer 
takes place at death, when he emerges from a 
material into a spiritual body. Is it not clearly 
implied, not to say expressly asserted, in this 
passage, that the resurrection of all the righte- 
ous is simultaneous, and that the event is still 
future, to occur at the epoch of the second ad- 
vent, and in conjunction with the translation of 
the living saints ? We can, of course, have no 
object in denying or disguising the fact, that 
these words have very much the air of directly 



THE RESURRECTION. 101 

contradicting the general tenor of our interpre- 
tation of the preceding portions of this scripture. 
Still, if our previous train of reasoning be sound, 
if our conclusions be fairly sustained by the 
evidence adduced, it is certain that the words, 
rightly understood, cannot be in conflict with 
them. In the present case, we are so strongly 
persuaded of the truth of our previous conclu- 
sions, founded both upon the intrinsic nature of 
the subject itself, and upon the just interpretation 
of language, that our confidence in them is in no- 
wise shaken by the literal rendering of a pas- 
sage which seems, at first view, to enforce en- 
tirely another theory." P. 191. This is the 
manner in which passages of Scripture, which 
speak expressly on the subject of a literal re- 
surrection, are made to "yield" his peculiar 
" sense " of the doctrine. If the doctrine of in- 
spiration flatly contradict his theory, the doctrine 
of inspiration must yield: that is all: for these 
" rational deductions " must not be contradicted ! 
He concludes finally upon these passages, that 
the apostle Paul was mistaken in supposing that 
the second advent of our Saviour was just at 
hand, when he supposed the wonderful things 
which he had mentioned in these passages, re- 
lative to the resurrection, would take place; 
and quotes two authorities to prove it, Voltaire 



102 THE RESURRECTION. f 

and Dr. Watts. Well, it is some comfort to 
know that the apostle was sincere, only mistaken. 
His intentions were good, no doubt. When I 
come to comment upon the passages alluded to, 
T shall produce better authority than either 
Voltaire or Dr. Watts, to prove that the apostle 
labored under no such mistaken apprehension. 

We can now understand how a "multitude 
of passages yield " his own peculiar " sense " of 
this doctrine more naturally and easily than any 
other. 

1st. He makes his "rational deductions the 
criterion of truth, in regard to the meaning of 
the inspired word." 

2d. Setting out in the light of this criterion 
of truth, every passage of Scripture he meets 
must yield the " sense " required by his " crite- 
rion," namely, his "rational deductions." He 
meets the account of our Saviour's resurrection. 
The evidence of a literal resurrection, in this 
case, he finds is the strongest that can possibly 
appeal to the understanding. The account, 
if true, ruins his theory for ever. The whole 
affair must be resolved into an " optical illu- 
sion." 

3d. Proceeding onward, in the light of these 
" rational deductions" and "optical illusions," he 
meets the positive declaration of the apostle 



THE RESURRECTION. 103 

Paul, that the resurrection of the dead is a 
future simultaneous resurrection of their bodies, 
1 Cor. xv ? 51-53 ; 1 Thess. iv, 17. This doc- 
trine, if true, overturns every part of his 
" sense " of the resurrection, which is, that it is 
neither a future nor a simultaneous event, nor is 
there "any participation of the body in it." 
What now is to be done ? Here is another 
" dilemma." Either his or the apostle's doctrine 
is false. "Optical illusions " will not apply to 
this case, because it is a prophecy yet future. 
What then ? Why, the apostle must have been 
mistaken ! and he was led into these erroneous 
views by an opinion that the second advent of 
our Saviour was just at hand. Is any one so 
stupid as not to perceive how "easily" and 
"naturally" Paul's doctrine yields our author's 
" sense " of the resurrection ? That is, no resur- 
rection at all? These passages, having been 
conquered, have now fallen in the rear, and be- 
come recruits : and, from their having embraced 
the views of their new leader so " naturally and 
easily," they may be expected to do valiant ser- 
vice, in case of another engagement. 

4th. Advancing again, in the light of his " ra- 
tional deductions," " optical illusions," and mis- 
taken apostles, he comes across the declaration 
of our Saviour, in John v, 28, 29, which sweeps 



104 THE RESURRECTION. 

to the winds his miserable theory. And now 
he acknowledges that his "rational deductions" 
may be false ; that " they are not sufficient of 
themselves to encounter the opposing doctrine 
of this text." But now his concern is to harmo- 
nize this text with the others he has commented 
upon, "which teach a contrary doctrine!" A 
doctrine, however, which he has forced upon 
them by his "rational deductions," which he 
has made the " criterion of truth, in regard to 
their meaning;" but which "criterion of truth" 
he now acknowledges may be false I ! There 
never was a more perfect sophism. It hardly 
has the merit of being an argument in a circle. 
If the rational deductions had been brought to 
prove the doctrine of Scripture, and then the 
Scriptures brought to prove the rational deduc- 
tions which had been made the criterion of truth, 
in regard to the meaning of the Scriptures, then 
it might have amounted to an argument in a 
circle. But, as it is y these deductions are made 
the criterion of truth; and yet the Scriptures 
contradict them so positively, that it is acknow- 
ledged they may be false, and yet the doctrine 
is insisted on ! Our author has laid his founda- 
tion in "rational deductions." Upon this he 
rears his superstructure. The current of in- 
spired truth sweeps away this foundation utterly. 



THE RESURRECTION. 105 

And now, forsooth, the edifice stands firm as 
ever, because it has been so well put together ! 
If it does, it is because, like the dry and faded 
blossoms of some noxious weeds which float in 
the air, it has not weight enough to fall when 
the foundation is swept away. 

Our author was right when he talked of be- 
ing reduced to a new dilemma, while comment- 
ing upon this passage. But the real dilemma, 
as we have seen, was not a conflict between this 
passage and others, but of a character sufficiently 
apparent from what has already been said. 

The final comment upon the passage, which 
has cost the author of the new theory immense 
trouble, is thus given by him, in form of a para- 
phrase : (John v, 28, 29) — " Marvel not at what 
I have just said : for the time is coming when 
the event predicted by Daniel, whatever or 
whenever it shall be, shall be accomplished ; 
and that, too, through my agency, to whom the 
Father hath given a quickening power, however 
lightly my claims may now be regarded!!" 
P. 240. What a perfectly non-committal affair 
is this ! I submit whether a system driven to 
such ridiculous extremes can rightfully lay 
claim either to Scripture or reason. 

I shall now adduce a class of Scriptures 
which connect the resurrection of the dead with 



106 THE RESURRECTION. 

the resurrection of Christ, in such a manner as 
to make it certain that a literal resurrection is 
meant. And here I need not repeat the proofs 
which have been adduced in favor of the literal 
resurrection of our Saviour's body. To him 
who believes the Scriptural account, these proofs 
are as strong as ever ivere brought, or ever can 
be brought, to establish any fact whatever: 
proofs that were continued for forty days; that 
were exhibited under a variety of circumstances, 
appealing to all the senses that could be brought 
to bear upon the case ; and before hundreds of 
witnesses at a time. Indeed, an inspired apos- 
tle declares that they were infallible ; and 
not only so, but that there were many infallible 
proofs of this fact. Acts i, 3. And proofs the 
denial of which, as we have already shown, 
impeaches the veracity of god, angels, and 

MEN ! ! ! 

The first passage of Scripture which we shall 
adduce, of the class above alluded to, is in Mat- 
thew xxvii, 50-53 : "Jesus, when he had cried 
again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 
And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in 
twain from the top to the bottom ; and the earth 
did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves 
were opened; and many bodies of the saints 
which slept arose, and came out of the graves 



THE RESURRECTION. 107 

after his resurrection, and went into the holy 
city, and appeared unto many." 

Here it will be observed, that although the 
graves were opened at the moment of the Sa- 
viour's death, yet the bodies of the saints did 
not arise and go into Jerusalem till after his 
resurrection. So, even in regard to these, our 
Saviour's resurrection was the "first fruits." 
The resurrection of the bodies of these saints 
went directly to confirm the doctrine, that our 
Saviour's resurrection was both a pledge and a 
pattern of the resurrection of believers. If the 
evangelist had had his eye directly upon the 
theory which we are opposing when he penned 
this account, his language could not have been 
more explicit: "The graves opened: the bodies 
which had slept in them arose, and came out of 
the graves. Now, what bodies were these which 
had slept in the graves, and which arose and 
came out of them ? Certainly not such bodies 
as the new theory contends for ; for, according 
to this theory, the "resurrection body is ex- 
haled with the dying breath, and goes forth 
from the body before it is consigned to the dust." 
P. 178. "It lives again, because it never dies," 
A strange reason, to be sure, for living again f 
Consequently, the resurrection body of the new 
theory never " slept," " because it never dies." 



108 THE RESURRECTION. 

It never was in the grave, it never came out of 
the grave. Indeed, it never had any body at 
all. " It is called a body, because the poverty 
of human language, or perhaps the weakness 
of the human mind, forbids the adoption of any 
more befitting term by which to express it." 
P. 70. 

Therefore, while this passage positively estab- 
lishes the doctrine of a literal resurrection, it 
positively contradicts every feature of the op- 
posing theory. But our author, nothing intimi- 
dated, boldly applies his doctrine of "optical 
illusions" to this case, as well as to that of 
Christ himself. " It was an appearance ;" " the 
putting forth of a visible effect;" "they had 
really arisen long before." All these deceptive 
"appearances" and "optical illusions" having 
the same laudable "object in view," namely, to 
deceive mankind into the belief of a palpable 
falsehood! But Professor B. has discovered 
the cheat ! ! 

A man needs more than an ordinary amount 
of grace, while dealing with a theory which re- 
sorts to such shameful expedients. 

I have already quoted, while speaking of the 
resurrection of Christ, those passages which de- 
clare that he was the first " fruits of the resur- 
rection," " the first born from the dead," " the 



THE RESURRECTION. 109 

first that should rise from the dead." But it is 
not true that Christ was the first to rise from 
the dead, unless the resurrection spoken of was 
of his body ; for " simply," in the sense of " im- 
mortality or a future state of existence," as the 
theory contends, men had been rising for thou- 
sands of years. And it is not true that Christ's 
resurrection, being that of his body, was " the 
first fruits of the resurrection of mankind, un- 
less their resurrection is that of the body. Here, 
then, as well as in a score of other places, it is 
seen that both the Bible and the new theory 
cannot be true. The theory positively denies 
what the Bible positively affirms : " But if the 
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, 
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ again 
from the dead, shall also quicken (bring to life) 
your mortal bodies" Rom. viii, 11. 

Now, what body is it which is mortal? Not 
the body which the new theory contends for, 
because that "never dies." Where in Scrip- 
ture or in reason does " mortal bodies " mean 
anything else than mortal bodies? The only 
difficulty here is, that there appears to be a con- 
dition in the resurrection spoken of. On this 
account, this passage, and a few others of kin- 
dred character, came near making our author 
believe that " the resurrection was the exclusive 



110 THE RESURRECTION. 

privilege of the righteous/' in which case he 
would have denied, as indeed he may hereafter, 
on the principles of " progressive improvement," 
that any but the righteous have either souls or 
bodies in a future state. But a little attention 
to this very condition will show that in this pas- 
sage it is only the resurrection of the righteous 
which is spoken of — a resurrection effected by 
the Spirit of God which dwells in them ; that is, 
the spirit of love, which will raise up their bo- 
dies like unto Christ's glorious body, making 
them suitable to be the companions of holy and 
glorified spirits, in contradistinction from the 
resurrection of the wicked, which will not be 
like " Christ's glorious body." So that if our 
author speaks of the resurrection in this sense, 
it is most unquestionably " the exclusive privi- 
lege of the righteous." And he would have 
learned this from John v, 28, 29, if he had not 
been blinded by his theory. For our Saviour 
says, " They that have done good," that is, they 
who have this same " Spirit of God dwelling in 
them," shall come forth to the resurrection of 
life, and those who have done evil to the resur- 
rection of damnation. This condition then per- 
fectly harmonizes with the whole current of 
Scripture on the subject. And it is probable 
that the apostle Paul had his eye on this very 



THE RESURRECTION. Ill 

distinction when he says, " If by any means I 
may attain unto the resurrection of the dead ;" 
where he employs a different Greek word (ex- 
anastasin) instead of anastasin. The preced- 
ing verse confirms this opinion. " That I may 
know him, and the power of his resurrection." 
Phil, iii, 10, 11. This is still more evident from 
verses 20, 21 of this same chapter: "For our 
conversation is in heaven ; from whence also we 
look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; 
who shall change our vile body, that it may be 
fashioned like unto his glorious body, according 
to the working whereby he is able to subdue all 
things unto himself." Here the apostle Paul felt 
what every human being ought to feel, a deep 
solicitude to be so conformed to Christ, that 
when he should come again, to judge the world, 
he might rise in the likeness of Christ's glo- 
rious body, in contradistinction from those who, 
neglecting the great interests of salvation, 
should " awake to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." 

Let us next examine 1 Corinthians vi, 13-15 : 
" Now the body is not for fornication, but for the 
Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God 
hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise 
up us by his own power. Know ye not that 
your bodies are the members of Christ ? shall I 



112 THE RESURRECTION. 

then take the members of Christ, and make them 
the members of a harlot ? God forbid." 

1 have given the whole connection here, that 
there may be no possibility of mistaking " what 
body is meant." Here, also, as in the other 
passages, the resurrection spoken of is so con- 
nected with that of our Lord, as to make it cer- 
tain that it will be the same in kind with his 
own. Besides, this text directly overthrows an- 
other of our author's " rational deductions." He 
declares that " all the purposes of a future state 
of retribution can be answered without the 
body." But this passage declares that " the 
body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the hody" 
and consequently, that " he will raise it up by 
his own power." Does not this look as though 
the Lord might have use for our bodies in a 
future state ? And if so, " all the purposes of a 
future state and of retribution can" not "be 
answered without them." 

2 Cor. iv, 13, 14: "We also believe, and 
therefore speak ; knowing that he which raised 
up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Je- 
sus, and present us with you." 

It is unnecessary to adduce further evidence 
on this point. If the evidence already adduced 
fails to show, that the resurrection of believers 
is so related to the resurrection of Christ, as to 



THE RESURRECTION. 113 

make it certain that their resurrection will be 
the same in kind as his, we need not attempt to 
prove anything from the Bible. 

But it is objected that Christ's resurrection 
can be a pattern of ours in but a very feeble 
sense — that there is a great dissimilarity — " a 
wide difference between a body with all its 
parts, yet entire, before decomposition has com- 
menced, and one totally dissolved and mingled 
with the elements." Why not admit, then, the 
resurrection of our Lord, and make these points 
of dissimilarity the strong points in the argu- 
ment, without resorting to " optical illusions ?" 
What a strange way of reasoning is this : 1. To 
prove that our Saviour's body never rose at all ; 
and 2. Show that there is a great difference be- 
tween the circumstances of the two cases, the 
one being raised before decomposition had com- 
menced, and the other, if at all, after being to- 
tally decomposed ! And pray wherein consists 
this " wide difference," if neither of the bodies 
ever rose at all ? 

But we admit these points of dissimilarity, in 
all their strength, and shall show that they are 
the strong points in our favor. Because if any 
particular body is to be made the pledge and 
the pattern of the resurrection of the " identical 
material" body which dies, it is necessary that 
8 



114 THE RESURRECTION. 

the body which is to be the pattern should die 
and rise again under circumstances which would 
make it perfectly evident to those for whose 
benefit the pledge and the pattern were given, 
that the very "identical material body" had 
risen again. And in order to this, it would be 
necessary that the person should be known, 
certainly, as distinguished from all others ; that 
there should be certain distinguishing marks of 
some kind upon the body by which the identity, 
both before and after death, could be proved. It 
would be necessary that this body should rise 
while these marks were fresh in mind, and be- 
fore they had been obliterated by decomposition. 
I put it to the common sense of all men, if these 
would not be the evidences, sought after by all 
who would thoroughly investigate such a test. 
Now all these evidences, in their greatest per- 
fection, centre in the resurrection of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. His resurrection, therefore, is 
the highest proof that could be given for a lite- 
ral resurrection of the bodies of mankind. 

But I will now go a step further ; and prove 
from our author himself, that our Saviour's re- 
surrection furnishes this very proof. On p. 36, 
he says, " The simple assertion that the dead 
body is to be raised, does not constitute an in- 
telligible proposition, for the reason that it leaves 



THE RESURRECTION. 115 

it utterly uncertain what body is meant A re- 
surrection is indeed predicated of a body ; but 
this is a very different thing from the resurrec- 
tion of the body, and our inquiry cannot possibly 
be satisfied without a more minute specification." 
Now, if the body of our Saviour had suffered 
decomposition, so that it could not have been 
identified by those who were intimately acquaint- 
ed with him, it would then, according to our 
author's views, have been " the resurrection of 
a body." But then " this does not constitute 
an intelligible proposition, because it leaves it 
uncertain what body is meant." This "is a 
very different thing from the resurrection of the 
body." Well then, our Saviour's resurrection 
was the resurrection of " the body :" " the body " 
that was crucified : " the body " that was killed : 
" the body " which had been mangled with the 
nails piercing the hands and feet : " the body " 
that had been pierced with the soldier's spear : 
and " the body" which bore, after the resurrec- 
tion, all the marks of violence received while 
hanging upon the cross. Can our author de- 
sire " a more minute specification ?" 

He requires evidence of a particidar kind 
for the support of a doctrine ; and when that 
identical evidence is produced, in absolute per- 
fection, he denies the doctrine because the very 



116 THE RESURRECTION. 

evidence he called for has been produced ! ! 
Unlike Thomas, he says, " I will not believe, be- 
cause I have put my fingers into the prints of the 
nails, and thrust my hand into his side" 

These points of dissimilarity are all our au- 
thor urged against Christ's resurrection being 
a perfect specimen of ours, for he acknowledges 
that it is in some sense a specimen. But we 
have now shown these very points of dissimi- 
larity are the strongest proofs that could possi- 
bly be given that our resurrection shall be like 
his, a literal resurrection. The new theory is 
most unscriptural, irrational, and absurd, from 
beginning to end. Everything in it is out of 
joint. Every argument proves the very reverse 
of what the author intended. Every missile he 
throws, rebounding, strikes himself, and every 
sharp weapon he seizes cuts his hands. 

The expression, " the resurrection of the 
dead," so frequent in the Scriptures, must "mean 
a literal resurrection whenever the death is a 
literal death. Where is the propriety of ap- 
plying the expression, " the resurrection of the 
dead," to that which lives in a future state, 
because it never dies ? In this case it should 
always be " the resurrection of the living" an 
expression which never occurs in the Scriptures. 

Matt, x, 28 : " And fear not them which kill 



THE RESURRECTION. 117 

the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but 
rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul 
and body in hell." How can this be done if the 
body never lives again after death ? The miser- 
able Universalist quibble about the " valley of 
Hinnom" will not help the matter at all, for the 
body and soul are cast into hell after death, as 
the parallel passages show. And the body can 
no more be punished in the "valley of Hin- 
nom" than anywhere else after death, unless it 
is raised again. And the soul does not go to 
the "valley of Hinnom" after death. 

We now come to the celebrated discourse of 
the apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xv, 3-8 : " For I de- 
livered unto you first of all that which I also 
received, how that Christ died for our sins ac- 
cording to the Scriptures ; and that he was 
buried, and that he rose again the third day ac- 
cording to the Scriptures ; and that he was seen 
of Cephas, then of the twelve : after that he was 
seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; 
of whom the greater part remain unto this pre- 
sent, but some are fallen asleep. After that he 
was seen of James ; then of all the apostles. 
Last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one 
born out of due time." 

Here it will be seen how careful the apostle 



118 THE RESURRECTION. 

resurrection of the dead with that of Christ, 
and hence his first business is, to 'prove the re- 
surrection of our Saviour. And here the lan- 
guage is such as to leave no possible doubt that 
a literal resurrection is meant. If our author 
please, it was the resurrection of " the body." 
" The body" that died for our sins. Verse 3. 
" The body" that was buried. Verse 4. " The 
body" that "rose again the third day," and not at 
the moment of death. The body that appeared 
to Cephas on the way to Emmaus, and to the 
apostles, the same night when he " showed them 
his hands and his feet." This resurrection in 
this sense he proves by the testimony of the 
apostles who saw him, and felt him, and heard 
him, and ate with him after his resurrection: 
and by jive hundred others, most of whom were 
still living and ready to attest the fact. 

Why this anxiety of the apostle to establish 
this truth in the very introduction of his argu- 
ment, with a mass of evidence so overwhelm- 
ing, but because he knew, that our Saviour's 
resurrection, so far as the identity of his body 
was concerned, was the proof of a similar resur- 
rection of the bodies of mankind? That the 
apostle understood this connection, and this re- 
lation between Christ's resurrection and ours, is 
made certain from verses 12, 13: "Now if 



THE RESURRECTION. 119 

Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, 
how say some of you that there is no resurrec- 
tion of the dead ? But if there be no resurrec- 
tion from the dead, then is Christ not risen." 
Here the apostle shows that precisely all that 
can be affirmed of the body of Christ, so far as 
rising from the dead is concerned, can be affirm- 
ed of all the dead, and precisely what can be 
affirmed of all the dead, can be affirmed of 
Christ. He first proves that Christ did rise 
from the dead. And then argues that if Christ 
rose from the dead, it is absurd to deny the re- 
surrection of the dead ; because to deny it is to 
deny that Christ rose, the very thing he had 
proved by more than five hundred witnesses. 

Yerse 14: "And if Christ be not risen, then 
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also 
vain." Because the Christ whom Paul preach- 
ed, and in whom they had believed, had pro- 
mised to prove himself the Saviour of the world 
by rising from the dead. And if he had not 
risen, he had deceived them, and imposed upon 
them, and consequently Paul's preaching him, 
and their believing in him, were vain. Verse 
15 : " Yea, and we are found false witnesses of 
God ; because we have testified that God raised 
up Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that 
the dead rise not." To deny this doctrine, was to 



120 



THE RESURRECTION. 



accuse the apostles and the five hundred others 
with falsehood. Verses 16-18: " For if the dead 
rise not, then is not Christ risen ; and if Christ 
be not risen, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in 
your sins. Then they also which have fallen 
asleep in Christ are perished." Because they 
had trusted in Christ to save them from their sins. 
But if he had not risen from the dead, he was 
himself a sinner, having been guilty of deception 
and falsehood. And those who had trusted in 
him to escape perdition, had trusted in one who 
had himself gone to perdition. And every one 
of these conclusions is as fairly chargeable upon 
our author as upon a part of the Corinthians. 

Yerse 20 : " But now is Christ risen from the 
dead, and become the first fruits of them that 
slept." No language could be more decisive 
and unequivocal than this. Here Christ is not 
only declared to be the first that rose immortal 
from death, but the first fruits of all the dead. 
Are the "first fruits" a pledge and a sample of 
the harvest ? Then is the resurrection of Christ 
the pledge and the sample of our resurrection. 
And what kind of "first fruits " would be an 
" optical illusion ?" Undoubtedly of a magnifi- 
cent and plentiful harvest of " optical illusions !" 

Verses 21-23: "For since by man came 
death, by man came also the resurrection of the 



THE RESURRECTION. 121 

dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive. But every 
man in his own order : Christ the first fruits ; 
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." 

From this passage, it is manifest that the life 
consequent upon the resurrection is something 
that was lost in Adam, and restored by Christ. 
" As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
be made alive." The question now is, What 
kind of a death is it to which all become sub- 
ject in Adam, and which is restored to all by 
Christ, and of which Christ himself is'the " first 
fruits ?" There are but three opinions on this 
subject that I know of: 1. That this resur- 
rection is a moral resurrection from a death in 
trespasses and in sins, as the Universalists gen- 
erally contend. 2. The opinion of Professor 
Bush, which is that " the resurrection is simply 
a future existence or immortality" of that which 
" never dies ;" and 3. The commonly received 
opinion, which is that of a literal resurrection 
of the human body. 

The first of these opinions is sufficiently re- 
futed by the fact, that in this very connection 
Christ is said to be the " first fruits " of this 
resurrection. It follows, therefore, that if it 
was a resurrection from a " death in trespasses 
and in sins," Christ had been dead in trespasses 



122 THE RESURRECTION. 

and in sins : a notion at once absurd and blas- 
phemous. 

The second opinion is refuted by the consi- 
deration that the life which is consequent upon 
the resurrection was lost in Adam, and restored 
by Christ. 

But has man no immortal part till the resur- 
rection ? Is that which " lives again in another 
state because it never dies/ 9 and " is immortal in 
its own nature," (p. 70,) lost in Adam? Has 
that died in Adam which is essentially immortal 
in its own 9 nature and never can die ? The idea 
is absurd and ridiculous in the extreme. The 
third opinion therefore, which is that of a literal 
resurrection from a literal death, is the doctrine 
of the apostle ; for the body became mortal in 
Adam, and will be restored to immortality by 
Christ, who is the "first fruits" of the resur- 
rection in this sense. 

Thus it is seen that truth, ever consistent 
with itself, contradicts no other part of God's 
word. And we are not driven to the unenvia- 
ble necessity, either of contradicting an inspired 
apostle, or accusing him with ignorance of his 
subject, nor of impeaching the veracity of the 
" true God and eternal life." 

But the passage declares that they that are 
Christ's shall be made alive at his coming 



THE RESURRECTION. 123 

What then becomes of the notion of a " devel- 
opment of the resurrection body at death ?" 
But then Paul labored under the mistaken notion 
that Christ's second advent was just at hand ! 
What a pity that the apostle should have been 
so misled ! ! 

" But might not Christ's second coming mean 
his coming at the destruction of Jerusalem ?" 
How will this help the matter? Did all who 
were Christ's rise from the dead at this time ? 
If our author's doctrine is true, there were a, 
good many " developments of a spiritual body 
at death," for there were many deaths at that 
time ; but alas ! they were the enemies of 
Christ who perished at the siege of Jerusalem. 

Verses 24-26 : " Then cometh the end, when 
he shall have delivered up the kingdom to 
God, even the Father ; when he shall have put 
down all rule, and all authority, and power. 
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies 
under his feet. The last enemy that shall be 
destroyed is death" 

This passage shows that this event shall 
transpire at the close of human probation ; 
when Christ's reign as Mediator shall cease. 
But before this, the last enemy, death, is to be 
destroyed. How can this be, if death holds 
an eternal dominion ? 



124 THE RESURRECTION. 

Verses 35-38 : " But some man will say, 
How are the dead raised up ? and with what 
body do they come ? Thou fool ! that which 
thou sowest is not quickened except it die : and 
that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that 
body which shall be, but bare grain, it may 
chance of wheat, or of some other grain : but 
God giveth it a body, as it pleaseth him, and to 
every seed his own body." 

Professor Bush seems to think the objection 
answered by the apostle in this passage, to be 
made by some person anxious to learn the 
manner of the resurrection, and says he " cannot 
understand the apostle's reasoning, unless he 
means to affirm that there is something of the 
nature of a germ, which emanates from the de- 
funct body, and forms, either the substance or 
the nucleus of the future resurrection body. 
.... Something that goes forth from the body 
before it is consigned to the dust." P. 178. 

But it is evident from the answer of the 
apostle, " Thou fool," that the objector was no 
such sincere inquirer after truth as our author 
supposes. He intended to make the most direct 
and positive denial of the possibility of the doc- 
trine, and to make the denial the more emphatic 
by giving it the form of a question ; a manner 
of speaking very common in the Scriptures* 



THE RESURRECTION. 125 

Thus ; our Saviour says, " Ye generation of 
vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of 
hell ?" That is, living as ye do, " ye cannot 
escape," &c. And the apostle Paul, "How 
shall we escape if we neglect so great salva- 
tion ?" That is, " we cannot escape." Multi- 
tudes of similar expressions may be found in the 
Scriptures. 

From the argument of the apostle it appears, 
that the person objecting, founded his objection 
upon the fact, that the body after death became 
decomposed, and mingled with other elements. 
Precisely the objection of our author. The ob- 
jection was founded upon " rational deductions." 
But Paul confounds the objector by what was 
matter of constant experience ; even a grain of 
wheat when sown, if it did not become decom- 
posed, would remain for ever in the ground. 
The argument stands thus. Objector. The 
dead can never be raised up, the body becomes 
entirely decomposed, and dissolved. Its identity 
is destroyed. With what body then will it come 
forth ? The thing is unreasonable and impossible. 

Paul's answer. Thou fool ! Thou objectest 
against the resurrection of the body, because it 
is dead, and decomposed, and mingled with the 
dust. But your own experience shall condemn 
you ; for the very seed you sow, whether wheat 



126 THE RESURRECTION. 

or other grain, never rises out of the ground 
except it die and become decomposed, the very 
objection you alledge against the resurrection of 
the body. You talk of the body as being a 
mass of loathsome corruption. But even the 
grain you sow becomes the same in this respect. 
But you do not sow the body that shall be, as 
to this circumstance, but naked grain which 
putrefies in the earth, but God giveth it a body 
such as pleases him, differing as to the circum- 
stance just mentioned, but composed of the same 
matter. It comes forth from corruption new 
and beautiful. So is the resurrection of the 
dead. The body that is sown or buried in the 
earth is not the same body that rises again, as 
to its frailty and tendency to corruption and dis- 
solution, though composed of the same matter : 
for (ver. 42-44) " it is sown in corruption" in a 
state of decay: "it is raised in incorruption. 
It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. 
It is sown in weakness ; it is raised in*power. 
It is sown a natural body," the subject of all these 
weaknesses ; " it is raised a spiritual body," 
subject to none of them. For " there is a na- 
tural body," namely, that which was sown, " and 
there is a spiritual body," namely, that which 
rises again ; very different as to its circum- 
stances, but composed of the same substance. 



THE RESURRECTION. 127 

This we conceive to be the true state of the 
apostle's argument, without ever being intended 
to give the least sanction to the " germ" doctrine. 
Any comparison may be tortured and spoiled 
by tracing analogies which were never intended. 
The point of comparison is a state of decay and 
corruption, in both the grain and the body, and 
the coming forth out of a state of corruption to 
new life and vigor. It was God who gave the 
grain such a body as pleased him ; and the God 
that could do the one could do the other. " It 
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorrup- 
tion." What is sown in corruption ? Why the 
dead body, carrying out the metaphor of the 
grain. " It is raised in incorruption." What 
is raised in incorruption ?■ Why that which was 
sown in corruption, namely, the body. What 
else was sown in corruption ? Was the re- 
surrection body of the new theory ever sown 
or buried in corruption ? It was never sown or 
buried at all, for " it escapes from the body be- 
fore it is consigned to the dust." It never was 
corruptible at all ; for " it is immortal in its 
own nature." It was never dead at all ; for " it 
lives in another state because it never dies." It 
never had any body at all ; for " it is only called 
a body because of the poverty of human lan- 
guage." 



128 THE RESURRECTION. 

" It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory." 
What is sown in dishonor ? Why, the body, in 
a state of dissolution, when it becomes food for 
worms. "It is raised in glory." What is raised 
in glory ? Why, that which was sown, or buried, 
in dishonor, viz., the body. " It is sown in weak- 
ness, it is raised in power." What is raised in 
power? Why, that which was sown in weak- 
ness, viz., the body. " It is sown a natural body, 
it is raised a spiritual body." What is raised a 
spiritual body ? Why, that which was sown a 
natural body. What else is sown, or buried, 
but the natural body ? It is this same natural 
body which becomes changed to a spiritual body 
by the resurrection from the dead. 

Will our author's nice distinction between 
" a body and the body " help him any here ? 
It will only help him into greater difficulty ; for 
the resurrection body here is " the body." " The 
body" which is subject to "corruption:" "the 
body" which is buried; and buried, too, in dis- 
honor: "the body" which is sown in weakness: 
" the" natural body. And this corruptible, dis- 
honored, weak, natural body shall be raised in- 
corruptible, honorable, glorious, powerful, and 
spiritual. 

Verses 50-55 : " Now this I say, brethren, 
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom 



THE RESURRECTION. - 129 

of God ; neither doth corruption inherit incor- 
ruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We 
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the 
last trump : for the trumpet shall sound, and 
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we 
shall be changed. For this corruptible must 
put on in corruption, and this mortal must put 
on immortality. So when this corruptible shall 
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall 
have put on immortality, then shall be brought 
to pass the saying that is written, Death is 
swallowed up in victory. O death, where is 
thy sting ? O grave, where is thy victory ?" 

Here the apostle shows that " flesh and blood 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God ;" that is, 
in its frail, corruptible, perishing state ; because 
"corruption cannot inherit incorruption" and 
hence the need of a change. But then the 
question might arise, " If flesh and blood cannot 
inherit the kingdom of God, what shall become 
of those who are still living when Christ shall 
come to raise the dead, and bring all men to 
judgment?" And here he reveals the "mystery." 
"We shall not all sleep," that is, we shall not 
all die, "but we shall all be changed in a mo- 
ment." The change that will pass upon the 
bodies of the living will leave them precisely 
9 



130 THE RESURRECTION. 

like the bodies of the dead after the resurrec- 
tion ; " for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead 
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
changed;" that is, those who should be living 
when this event should transpire: because "this 
corruptible must put on incorruption," whether 
it be a living body or a dead body, "and this 
mortal must put on immortality," whether living 
or dead, when this event transpires; because 
frail, dying, corruptible flesh and blood, as such, 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It must 
therefore be changed, and made " incorruptible" 
and immortal. Look at the peculiar phraseology 
of verses 52-54: "This mortar 9 — mortal what? 
Mortal body—" shall put on immortality" What 
else but the body is mortal ? And it is the body 
which the apostle is discoursing about, as the 
whole connection proves. " This corruptible" 
— corruptible what? ''corruptible body" — shall 
put on incorruption. What else but the body 
is corruptible? 

Can it be affirmed of that indescribable some- 
thing which rises at the moment of death, ac- 
cording to the new theory — that something which 
the poverty of human language will not admit 
of being expressed in words — that this mortal 
shall put on immortality ; that this dead some- 
thing shall be raised incorruptible ? Most cer- 



THE RESURRECTION. 131 

tainly not ; for that something " is immortal in 
its own nature, and lives in a future state, be- 
cause it never dies;" while the body, the only 
thing which is corruptible and mortal, " cannot 
be raised again in any sense whatever" but re- 
mains eternally under the dominion of death ! 
What then becomes of the triumphant exclama- 
tion of the apostle, at the end of this passage : 
" Then shall be brought to pass the saying that 
is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where 
is thy victory?" The king of terrors, with his 
foot upon the very ground that covered his vic- 
tim, might lift his ghastly arm, and, showing his 
dreadful spear, answer, "Here is my sting;" 
while the grave, without even opening her 
mouth, might mutter, in deep, sepulchral tones, 
" And here is my victory" 

But there is another consideration, contained 
in verse 52, which utterly ruins the new theory. 
This theory maintains that there will be no 
general resurrection of the dead, but that the- 
resurrection, such as it is, is a progressive thing, 
and has been going on for six thousand years ! 
But, in opposition to this, the apostle declares, 
"We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump : for the 
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be 



132 THE RESURRECTION. 

raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 
This shows most conclusively that the period is 
yet future, and at the end of time. Everything 
in this account of the resurrection is directly 
against every feature of the new doctrine. What 
language could more distinctly and unequivocally 
teach the future and simultaneous resurrection 
of the dead? 

In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 4th 
chapter, commencing with the 13th verse, we 
have the same subject introduced again : " But 
I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, 
concerning them that are asleep, that ye sorrow 
not even as others who have no hope. For if 
we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even 
so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring 
with him." Here, as before, it is seen that Paul 
makes the resurrection of the dead to depend 
upon that of our Saviour. "For this we say 
unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who 
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, 
shall not prevent them which are asleep. For 
the Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
and with the trump of God: and the dead in 
Christ shall rise first. Then we which are 
alive and remain shall be caught up together 
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in 



THE RESURRECTION. 133 

the air : and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 
Wherefore comfort one another with these 
words." 

The reason Paul assigns why he would dis- 
suade the Thessalonians from indulging in im- 
moderate grief for their pious dead was, that 
Christ had pledged himself to raise them in the 
likeness of his glorious body, and that on ac- 
count of this there would be no particular ad- 
vantage in being alive at Christ's second coming, 
because those who should be alive and remain 
unto the coming of the Lord should not prevent 
((pdaacjfiev) — that is, should not go before ; 
should not be ^caught up" first — for the dead 
in Christ should rise first, that is, before the 
living should be changed ; and then those who 
were alive would be caught up with them to 
meet the Lord, changed of course from corrupt- 
ible to incorruptible, and from mortal to im- 
mortal, as is shown in Corinthians. 

We here have the same striking evidence as 
in Corinthians that these grand events will 
occur at a future period, and will take place at 
the second coming of Christ. " We who remain 
at the coming of the Lord" &c: "for the Lord 
himself shall descend from heaven." The pious 
dead will first rise. In a moment more, in the 
twinkling of an eye, after the dead in Christ 



134 THE RESURRECTION. 

shall have risen, the living saints will be changed 
from mortal to immortal, and both ascend together 
to meet the Lord in the air. Nearly simulta- 
neous with the resurrection of the pious dead, 
and the change of the living saints, perhaps in 
a moment more, will be the resurrection of the 
wicked, " to shame and everlasting contempt ;" 
"to the resurrection of damnation," as is else- 
where taught in the Scriptures. It is evident 
that in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, as well 
as in the passage in Thessalonians, the apostle 
is discoursing principally upon the resurrection 
of the righteous. This is as might have been 
expected, since in both cases he was directing 
his discourse especially to Christians; and in 
the last case his special object seems to have 
been to administer consolation to those who were 
rrfburning the death of their Christian friends. 
But although Paul in Corinthians was princi- 
pally discoursing on the resurrection of the 
righteous, yet he positively declares that all the 
dead shall rise at the same grand epoch, though 
not at the very same moment: " For as in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 
But every man in his own order: Christ the 
first fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at 
his coming." The word "order," (rdyfiarr,) 
signifies a company, or band, a squadron, or co- 



THE RESURRECTION. 135 

hort, or legion. It also signifies a command 
or order by which these "companies," &c, are 
arranged and regulated. The apostle had no 
sooner declared that in Christ should all be made 
alive, than he immediately adds, "But every 
man in his own order: Christ the first fruits," 
who in obedience to the divine command or order 
rose the third day after death, by the power of 
God. This was his "order." Second: "after- 
ward they that are Christ's at his coming" 
These are they "who have done good;" "and 
.they shall come forth unto the resurrection of 
life" This is their order, or command from God : 
all the truly pious shall come forth in this order 
or company. Third : the wicked shall next rise 
from the dead, after the pious living are changed ; 
but these are " they that have done evil" " they 
shall come forth to the resurrection of damna- 
tion." This is their "order" or command from 
God; for "all" the dead "shall be made alive." 
All -the wicked shall rise in this order or com- 
pany, then will follow the general judgment ; 
for Christ's second coming is to "judge the 
world." That these events will transpire in 
immediate connection with the last judgment is 
positively declared by John the revelator : Rev. 
xx, 11-15: "And I saw a great white throne, 
and him that sat on it, from whose face the 



136 THE RESURRECTION. 

earth and the heaven fled away ; and there was 
found no place for them. And I saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God : and the 
books were opened; and another book was 
opened, which is the book of life : and the dead 
were judged out of those things which were 
written in the books, according to their works. 
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; 
and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
were in them; and they were judged every man 
according to their works. . . . And whosoever 
was not found written in the book of life was 
cast into the lake of fire*" Here the resurrection 
of all the dead is taught in remarkably strong 
terms ; not only the sea, but death and hell, 
(or hades, f Acdrjg, the place of departed souls,) 
gave up their dead. Death gave up their bodies, 
and hades their souls, that they might be united 
together before they should be judged according 
to the things done in the body. 

In this passage the resurrection of all the 
dead, the appearance of the " great white throne, 
and him that sat upon it," the opening of the 
"books," the summoning of all the dead, both 
small and great, to stand before the throne, the 
decision which would fix the doom of all man- 
kind for a long eternity, are but parts of one 
stupendous scene of grand and awful sublimity. 



THE RESURRECTION. 137 

It is thus, by " comparing scripture with 
scripture/' that we are able to form a correct 
and connected account of the grand events that 
will accompany "the resurrection of the dead;" 
and thus to fix, with absolute certainty, the 
period of its occurrence at the end of the world, 
as well as to determine the accompanying cir- 
cumstances. 

We have seen, in another place, that the only 
alternative for the opposing theory is to assert 
that the apostle Paul, while writing to the Co- 
rinthians and Thessalonians, labored under the 
mistaken opinion that Christ's second advent was 
just at hand, when these things would take place. 
But this very position, repulsive and shocking 
as it is, admits after all that Paul thought and 
taught that the resurrection would take place in 
connection with Christ's second advent. We 
shall just now avail ourselves of this admission. 
Paul did believe, then, that the resurrection of 
the dead would take place at the second coming 
of Christ : then Paul did not believe that " this 
event transpires with every one at the moment 
of death." But our author believes it. Why 
then has he quoted the apostle Paul to prove 
what he acknowledges the apostle did not 
believe ? 

But Paul says, in the introduction of his dis- 



138 THE RESURRECTION. 

course to the Corinthians, " For I delivered unto 
you first of all that which I also received, how 
that Christ died for our sins according to the 
Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he 
rose again the third day," &c. Now the ques- 
tion is, how did the apostle receive his gospel? 
He tells us himself, in Galatians i, 11, 12 : "But 
I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was 
preached of me is not after man. For I neither 
received it of man^ neither was I taught it, but 
by the revelation of Jesus Christ" And in the 
passage from Thessalonians he says, " For this 
we say unto you by the word of the Lord" 
Was Paul mistaken in this also ? Did he think 
the Lord had inspired him to say these things 
when he had received no such inspiration? If 
he told the truth when he declared that he 
was immediately inspired to say these things, 
then he did not labor under the mistake attri- 
buted to him. Therefore we see that the new 
system is directly at war with the inspiration 
of the Scriptures. 

But that the apostle entertained no such 
opinion as our author attributes to him, in regard 
to the speedy coming of Christ to judge the 
world, is still further proved from his second 
letter to these same Thessalonians. 

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the com-* 



THE RESURRECTION. 139 

ing of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gather- 
ing together unto him, that ye be not soon 
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, 
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that 
the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man de- 
ceive you by any means : for that day shall not 
come, except there come a falling away first, 
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of per- 
dition ; who opposeth and exalteth himself above 
all that is called God, or that is worshiped ; so 
that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, 
showing himself that he is God. Remember 
ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told 
you these things ?" This prophecy of the apos- 
tle, relative to the " man of sin," applies in every 
particular to the popes of Rome. Both by word 
and deed they answer this description to the 
very letter, as could be abundantly shown if this 
were the place to do it* 

* " Doniinus Deus noster papa. Alter Deus in terra. 
Rex regum, dominus dominorum. Idem est Dominium 
Dei et papae. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum papam 
non potuisse statuerese, prout statuit, hereticum conse- 
reter. Papae potestas est major omni potestate, creata 
extenditque se ad coelestia, terrestria, et infemalia. 
Papa facit quicquid, libet etiam illicita et est plus quam 
Deus." — " Our Lord God the pope. Another God upon 
earth. King of kings and Lord of lords. The same is 
the dominion of God and the pope. To believe that our 



140 THE RESURRECTION. 

But what am I doing ? Has it come to this, 
that we are obliged to defend the inspiration of 
the Scriptures, sentence by sentence, against the 
assaults of a Christian, and a Christian minister •? 

There is a sense in which the writers of the 
New Testament speak of the dispensation in 
which they lived as the " last time," and the end of 
all things being at hand ; but not by any means 
such a sense as our author supposes, as has just 
been shown. When life and immortality were 
fully brought to light by the gospel, the last 
grand dispensation was fully ushered in ; a dis- 
pensation never to be changed, or superseded 
while man remains upon earth, — never to " wax 
old " and " vanish away," as preceding dispen- 
sations had done. For although the great 
essentials of salvation have been the same in all 
ages of the world, yet their mode of manifesta- 
tion has been different in different dispensations. 
But now the system has been completely un- 
folded. The great atoning sacrifice has been 

Lord God the pope might not decree as he decreed it, 
were a matter of heresy. The power of the pope is 
greater than all created power, and extends itself to 
things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The pope doeth 
whatsoever helisteth, and is more than God." — Jewel 7 s 
Apology and Defense, in Dowham's Treatise concerning 
Antichrist. 



THE RESURRECTION. 141 

made. "Eternal redemption" has been pur- 
chased. Jesus Christ has been "proclaimed 
the Son of God with power," and " the Saviour 
of the world," " by the resurrection from the 
dead" The veil which concealed from mortal 
view the holy of holies has been rent. " The 
mercy seat " has become immediately accessible 
through " the new and living way." We now 
" have a High Priest over the house of God," 
" who ever liveth to make intercession for us." 
The same divine light, which at one period was as 
" the dawning of the morning," and at another, 
" fair as the moon," has now become " clear as 
the sun." The same " Sun of righteousness, 5 ' 
which in former dispensations shone only by 
reflection, has now risen in full view, and 
spreads his cheering beams over the face of 
creation. And he shall continue to rise, but 
not to set : for when he shall have attained his 
zenith altitude, all who have received and 
improved his heavenly influence shall be 
sweetly drawn by his attraction up to his own 
embrace. 

Considering, therefore, this last and perma- 
nent dispensation of grace, with reference to 
dispensations which preceded it, which were 
only temporary in their character, and whose 
only object was to prepare the world for the 



142 THE RESURRECTION. 

reception of this — we see the propriety of de- 
nominating the present, the last dispensation, or 
" the last time." 

There is also a sense in which the inspired 
writers speak of " the end of all things being at 
hand." But not at all in the sense our author 
supposes. When the whole of human existence 
is taken into the account, the longest period 
that can intervene between the present and the 
day of judgment dwindles to "an inch of time, 
a moment's space." A thousand, or even ten 
thousand years is but & point, compared with 
that flow of interminable duration which spreads 
itself out beyond it. And especially when it is 
considered, that the brief period allotted to hu- 
man life is all the space we have, in which to 
prepare for the day of judgment, and for the 
scenes of eternal retribution ; the period of 
death, so far as any preparation is concerned, 
brings us into immediate connection with the 
judgment day. In this sense, the apostles speak 
of the " day of the Lord," " the end of all 
things," as at hand, without ever supposing that 
it would come in the age in which they lived. 
And we ourselves do the same. Aside there- 
fore from the shocking consequences involved 
in charging ignorance and erroneous views 
upon the inspired apostles, there is not the 



THE RESURRECTION. 143 

shado v of evidence that they entertained the 
ervon- as opinions attributed to them. 

We next proceed to examine a passage of 
Script. j*e which is relied upon to support the 
new o ctrine of the resurrection, and which is 
the oi \y one that with even any plausibility 
can be made " to yield " such a " sense " as the 
theory contends for. Matt, xxii, 23-32 : " The 
same c ay came unto him the Sadducees, which 
say th(;re is no resurrection ; and asked him, 
saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die hav- 
ing no children, his brother shall marry his wife, 
and ra ?se up seed unto his brother. Now there 
were with us seven brethren. And the first, 
when he had married a wife, deceased; and, 
having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. 
Likewise the second, and third, unto the seventh. 
And last of all the woman died also. There- 
fore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she 
be of the seven, for they all had her ? Jesus 
answered, and said unto them, Ye do err, not- 
knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 
For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor 
are given in marriage, but are as the angels of 
God in heaven. But as touching the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, have ye not read that which 
was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the 
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and 



144 TH^ RESURRECTION. 

the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of the 
dead, but of the living." This argument put to 
silence the Sadducees, (ver. 34.) 

The argument which the new theory would 
draw from this passage is the following: viz. 
That our Saviour proves the resurrection of 
the dead, by proving that Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, were then living. But their bodies had 
never risen from the dead ; and consequently 
the resurrection of the dead does not imply 
the participation of the body. 

Now we are not disposed to admit that we 
encounter any "great difficulty here in view of 
our previous position," nor that we are re- 
duced to any " new dilemma" nor that there is 
any " apparent conflict between this and other 
parts of revelation." But we shall now attempt 
to show that this passage is capable of an 
explanation, in perfect harmony with the uni- 
form teachings of the Scriptures on the subject 
of the resurrection. 

The objection of the Sadducees to the resur- 
rection of the body rested on two grounds. 
1. They denied that there was any future state 
whatever. " For the Sadducees say that there 
is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit : but 
the Pharisees confess both." Acts xxiii, 8. 
Denying that men have any souls after death, 



THE RESURRECTION. 145 

of course they would deny the resurrection of 
the body. 2. They supposed the doctrine was 
irrational, and absurd, in itself, as is manifest 
from the case they had supposed, and their 
reasoning from it. Our Saviour first clears 
away the difficulties which they had thrown 
around the subject — he answers their " philoso- 
phical objections," and then attacks their main 
position. And it may be well enough to notice 
in this case one or two remarkable coincidences, 
in the views of the Sadducees, and those of Pro- 
fessor Bush, on this subject. 1. They, like him, 
denied the u resurrection of the body in any 
sense whatever," because it encountered in- 
superable difficulties. 2. They could not tell 
inasmuch as one woman had had several hus- 
bands during lifetime, which husband she would 
have in the resurrection. He cannot tell, 
inasmuch as the soul has had several bodies 
during lifetime, " which body is meant w T hen it 
is said, The dead shall rise again." Our Saviour 
confounds them by showing that they were both 
ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God. 
1. They were ignorant of the power of God ; 
for God, who is almighty, could not only raise 
the dead, but could so change the gross matter 
of which the dead body was composed, that in a 
future state it would have none of those animal 
10 



146 THE RESURRECTION. 

passions, and lusts, which had attached to it in 
the present life — that in this respect those who 
should be raised from the dead, would be like 
the angels, and consequently, that there would 
be no marrying or giving in marriage in a 
future state. 

2. Having cleared away the rubbish which 
their " rational deductions " had thrown around 
the subject, he next proceeds to attack their 
main position, which was a denial of the im- 
mortality of the soul. If the very foundation 
of their theory could be removed, it might be 
presumed their theory would fall, unless, like 
our author's it could stand without any found- 
ation. 

Their doctrine must be overthrown by the 
Scriptures. But they had discarded all the 
Scriptures, except the five books of Moses. 
They had taken a position positively contradict- 
ed by a large portion of the Scriptures, and 
being too consistent to acknowledge the inspi- 
ration of certain scriptures, and yet contradict 
the very writers themselves, they had rejected 
all but the Pentateuch. In this respect we must 
confess the parallel fails between them and our 
author. Our Saviour proceeds therefore to prove 
the immortality of the soul from the Pentateuch 
itself; and quotes Exodus iii, 6: "I am the 



THE RESURRECTION. 147 

God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and 
the God of Jacob." And his comment upon the 
passage is, that " God is not the God of the 
dead, but of the living" Thus showing that 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all living 
when this declaration was made to Moses, al- 
though their bodies were all dead, and some of 
them had been dead for centuries. Their souls, 
therefore, lived after their bodies were dead. 
Thus the Sadducees were confounded out of 
their own acknowledged Scriptures, and the 
foundation of their objection removed. There 
never was an argument more logically construct- 
ed, and more strictly conforming to the estab- 
lished rules of argumentation, than this argument 
with the Sadducees. 

The subject of the first resurrection, as treat- 
ed of in Rev. xx, 4-6, is confessedly of great 
obscurity, and one upon which, perhaps, no man 
is prepared to pronounce with certainty. But 
whatever may be the meaning of that difficult 
passage, one thing is evident, it relates only to 
martyrs who have suffered violent deaths from 
persecution. For the passage commences thus : 
" And I saw thrones, and they that sat upon 
them, and judgment was given unto them : and 
I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for 
the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, 



148 THE RESURRECTION. 

and which had not worshiped the beast, neither 
his image, neither had received his mark upon 
their foreheads, or in their hands : and they 
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 
But the rest of the dead lived not again till the 
thousand years were finished. This is the first 
resurrection." 

Whether it is meant that those, or some of 
those who had been put to death, when dark 
clouds seemed to lower over the future pros- 
pects of the Christian church, should be raised 
from the dead, and witness the blessed influence 
of a general prevalence of those great princi- 
ples for which they suffered, when " the wolf 
shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard 
lie down with the kid, and the young lion 
with the calf and the fatling :" when the 
sucking child shall play upon the hole of the asp, 
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the 
cockatrice' den : when they shall not hurt nor 
destroy in all God's holy mountain, because the 
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord ; 
or whether it has some other meaning, perhaps 
will never be known till the event shall be ful- 
filled. But whatever be the meaning of the 
passage, it certainly does not oppose the doctrine, 
that there shall be a general resurrrection of 
the dead, all the dead at Christ's second coming 



THE RESURRECTION. 149 

at the day of judgment, for this doctrine is very 
distinctly taught, as we have already seen, in 
the subsequent part of this same chapter. 

It is therefore most certainly evident from the 
Scriptures, that there will be a general resur- 
rection of the bodies of all mankind that are 
dead, when Christ shall come to judge the world. 
Blessed be God for such evidence as the Scrip- 
tures contain in support of such a truth. This 
doctrine, considering its relations and its depend- 
encies, is the most important article of our faith. 
All that is vital in the Christian system centres 
in it. To receive it in the love of it, with its 
relations and dependencies, is to receive Christ 
To deny it, is to deny the Lord that bought us. 
It was on this account, that the apostles sum up 
the whole Christian doctrine by calling it "Jesus 
and the resurrection" 

An additional argument in favor of this doc- 
trine may be drawn from the fact, that a denial 
of it involves the shocking consequences already 
developed in the course of these remarks. 

I do not deem it necessary to enter into a 
separate argument to overturn the author's 
theory relative to the day of judgment. His 
denial of any general judgment is consequent 
upon the denial of any general resurrection. 
And if this last error has been fairly overthrown, 



150 THE RESURRECTION. 

the other falls with it. And if other arguments 
in support of a general judgment were necessary, 
they have been furnished over and over again 
by those who have so ably defended the doctrine 
of Scripture on this subject against the assaults 
of Universalism ; for Professor Bush and they 
are at perfect agreement in their arguments 
and criticisms on this point. 

I cannot close these remarks without entering 
my earnest protest against this new doctrine, 
from beginning to end. I regard both the 
theory and the manner of defending it as here- 
tical and dangerous. Should the doctrine of 
the new theory become prevalent, I should re- 
gard it as the greatest calamity that ever befell 
the Christian church. It is a theory that sets 
up enfeebled human reason as superior to the 
word of God. It is a theory whose mode of 
interpreting the Scriptures is directly calcu- 
lated to destroy all confidence in them. 

It charges the apostles with ignorance in re- 
lation to the very things which they declare 
themselves that they were divinely inspired to 
teach. It boldly and flatly contradicts in terms 
what the apostles positively affirm. 

It is a system which, while it professes to 
revere the Christian Scriptures, gives up the 
whole ground to infidelity; a system whose 



THE RESURHECTIOX. 151 

very motto in regard to the manner of receiving 
the doctrines of the Bible would be subscribed 
to by every infidel in the land. 

I protest against the new theory as lower- 
ing the standard of Christian morals, by advo- 
cating the Jesuitical doctrine, that fraud and 
deception may be practiced when a laudable 
object is to be attained. 

I protest against it, as making the hearts of 
God's people sad, whom he hath not made sad, 
by stripping from them " the hope of the re- 
surrection from the dead;" and as "strength- 
ening the hands of the wicked, that he should 
not turn from his wicked way, by promising 
him" that there is no day of judgment. 

I utterly protest against the new theory, as 
ruinous to the doctrine of the atonement, by 
making the Saviour of the world just what his 
enemies declared he was — a deceiver. 

I solemnly protest against this modern here- 
sy, as shockingly blasphemous, in charging the 
eternal God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
the holy angels, with conspiring together to 
deceive mankind in the most important event 
that ever occurred upon earth ; which decep- 
tion required " optical illusions " to be practiced, 
and positive falsehoods to be uttered: thus 
making the world believe, that a most stupen- 



152 THE RESURRECTION 

dous miracle had been performed, in raising our 
Saviour's body on the third day, when nothing 
of the kind had taken place; that which 
caused the " appearance " of it having been 
merely & juggling trick! 

Such is the new system, and such the argu- 
ments by which it is sustained. Such are the 
materials of the bulwark which has been erect- 
ed, from which to batter down the strong walls 
surrounding the doctrine of the resurrection of 
the dead. 

But the breath of inspiration sweeps them 
away as the withering faded leaves of autumn 
are driven before the tempest. We are now 
prepared to answer a question asked with much 
assurance, on p. 247 of the book which has now 
been reviewed. " What then," says the author, 
" becomes of the Scriptural evidence of the re- 
surrection of the body ? Does it not evaporate 
in the crucible of logical and philological in- 
duction ?" No, blessed be God, it comes forth, 
like gold tried in the fire; the brighter and 
purer for the fiery ordeal. But I hope our 
author does not think that logic has entered, 
even in the smallest quantities, into the compo- 
sition of his " crucible." A " crucible " made 
up of doubtful hypotheses, apostolic mistakes, 
pious frauds and palpable falsehoods, and heat- 



THE RESURRECTION. 153 

ed only by the phantastic glare of an " optical 
illusion." 

If there is one logical argument in the book 
bearing upon the subject of the resurrection, I 
am greatly mistaken. 

I trust that it has now been shown satisfac- 
torily, 

1 . That the doctrine of a literal resurrection 
of the human body is not contrary to reason, 
although a doctrine which mere unaided rea- 
son could never have discovered. 

2. That the arguments by which the Scrip- 
ture doctrine is attempted to be proved unreason- 
able and absurd, have themselves been proved 
to possess the very characteristics which they 
fain would fix upon the Scripture doctrine. 

3. That the doctrine of a literal resurrec- 
tion of the body is as positively and unequivo- 
cally taught in the Scriptures as any proposition 
can be expressed in language : so that if we can 
certainly know anything from the Scriptures, 
we can certainly know this to be a Scriptural 
doctrine. 

4. That there will be a general resurrection 
of the bodies of all the dead, at Christ's second 
coming to judge the world ; when the bodies of 
the living shall be changed from mortal to immor- 
tality, and become like the resurrection body. 



154 THE RESURRECTION. 

5. That the bodies of mankind after the re- 
surrection, although composed of the same matter 
as was laid in the grave, will be very different 
in their circumstances and properties from what 
they have been during lifetime. 

6. That the good and the bad will come forth 
under very different circumstances, in accord- 
ance with the characters they have formed 
during the present life. 

But in regard to the nature and properties of 
the resurrection body we are but partially in- 
formed in the word of God. The body that 
shall come forth is called a spiritual body, be- 
cause not subject to mortality, or corruption, or 
change, or waste, as in the present life when 
it was a natural body. Some suppose a spirit- 
ual body cannot be material, in the very nature 
of the case. But why not ? To become spirit- 
ual is not to become a spirit ; but to become like 
a spirit in some particulars. Our Saviour's 
body after his resurrection was a spiritual body ; 
and yet he positively declares it was not a spirit. 
There is nothing inconsistent in the nature of the 
case, in a material body becoming refined, per- 
manently immortal, having no more need than 
a pure spirit to repair its wastes by constant sup- 
plies of food, as in the present life ; or to rest and 
sleep in order to restore its enfeebled energies. 



THE RESURRECTION. 155 

It is said of the pious, that their bodies shall 
be like unto Christ's glorious body. Christ's 
glorious body was once manifested to three of 
his disciples on Mount Tabor, where the 
" fashion of his countenance was changed," and 
" his face did shine as the sun, and his garments 
were white as the light." One of these same 
disciples, St. John, saw him again after his as- 
cension, and describes his appearance as exceed- 
ingly glorious : " His garments were white as 
snow, and the hairs of his head like pure wool. 
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet 
like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a fur- 
nace ; and his countenance was as the sun shin- 
ing in his strength." O what a contrast with 
the body that hung bleeding upon the cross ! 
And O, is it possible that our poor perishable, 
dying bodies, shall be fashioned like unto 
Christ's glorious body ? The mouth of the 
Lord hath spoken it. " What manner of love 
the Father hath bestowed upon us !" From 
" those eyes which have poured forth tears of 
repentance, shall all tears be wiped, and they 
shall be blessed with the visions of the Almigh- 
ty. Those hands which have been lifted up in 
prayer, and stretched out to the poor, shall hold 
the palms of victory, and the harp of joy. Those 
feet which have been wearied in going about to 



156 THE RESURRECTION. 

do good, shall walk the streets of the New 
Jerusalem." Because " we look for the Saviour, 
the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, who shall 
change our vile bodies, that they may be fash- 
ioned like unto his glorious body, according to 
the working whereby he is able to subdue all 
things unto himself." But it does not yet fully 
appear what we shall be, "but we know that 
when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for 
we shall see him as he is." It is enough for us 
to know that God will change our frail bodies 
into the likeness of Christ's body, and make 
them such bodies as shall please him. 

Respecting the bodies of the wicked, we have 
still less information. We know that they shall 
be raised, but how their bodies shall differ from 
those of the righteous we are not informed. 
They awake to shame and everlasting contempt. 
But what effect their condition will have upon 
their bodies, or their bodies upon their condi- 
tion, perhaps no one can tell. Some suppose 
that the wicked will rise, subject to all the dis- 
eases, pains, &c, which have afflicted their bodies 
during the present state. But I think this view 
is not authorized in the Scriptures. Their 
bodies will be spiritual. Whether the difference 
between the bodies of the righteous and the 
wicked shall result entirely from the different 



THE RESURRECTION. 157 

conditions of their souls, or from something else, 
I do not know that we are particularly in- 
formed. 

If the resurrection body should be so consti- 
tuted as to be a perfect index of the soul, this 
circumstance itself, without supposing any other 
difference in the nature of the bodies, would 
cause them to differ as much as light from dark- 
ness, or heaven from hell. That there is a 
tendency to this in a greater or less degree, 
even in the present life, all will allow. Long 
and established habits of genuine piety — of 
godly sincerity — of holy love — never fail, in a 
greater or less degree, to give the countenance 
a benign, serene, peaceful, and heavenly aspect. 
On the other hand, long established habits of 
gross wickedness produce their corresponding 
appearance. If this tendency should be carried 
to perfection in a future state, the contrast be- 
tween the bodies of the good and bad would be 
of the most marked character. What could be 
more lovely than a body made the temple of the 
Holy Ghost, and filled with all the fullness of God, 
faithfully reflecting God's moral image in every 
motion, in every look, in every lineament of the 
countenance, in every expression of the eye, — 
all that is lovely in human character, — all that 
is blessed in religion, — all that assimilates to the 



158 THE RESURRECTION. 

divine likeness, — all that endears Christians to 
each other, beaming in the eye, — radiating from 
the countenance, and visible in every part of 
the body ! And on the other hand, what would 
be more truly a resurrection to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt, than to be raised with a body 
that would faithfully expose every foul passion, 
every abominable propensity of the human 
heart unsanctified ! when pride, hatred, jea- 
lousy, revenge, malignity, covetousness, hatred 
of God, ill will to men, with every other vice 
that can disgrace and blacken the human cha- 
racter, wrangling like so many infernal demons 
in the bosom, should stand out in hideous and 
frightful deformity, without the least possibility 
of concealment, upon every part of the body. 
But conjecture does not prove anything. Nor 
is it so important to us to know the precise 
manner of our future connection of soul and 
body, or the precise difference between the 
resurrection bodies of the good and the bad, as 
to be prepared to enjoy the one and escape the 
other. It is more important to know how to 
get sin out of our hearts, than to know how sin 
got into this world. It is more important to 
know how to escape the second death, than to 
know precisely the manner of future punish- 
ment. It is more important to know how to be 



THE RESURRECTION. 159 

prepared for heaven, than to know precisely 
in what all its enjoyments consist. 

Let even the uncertainty that hangs over the 
manner of our future connection of soul and 
body stimulate us to seek such a conformity to 
the will of God — such an intimate union to him 
who is head over all things to the church, that 
when the resurrection morn shall dawn, when 
the trump of God shall sound, to bid the slum- 
bering dead awake and come to judgment, we 
may be prepared to rise in the company of 
those "who are Christ's at his coming," and 
with joy ascend to meet the Lord in the air, and 
so be ever with the Lord. Amen. 



THE END, 



fir 

21\ 



; 

■■■I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




020 539 841 7 




vAi4£*' 



